[Cfrg] Dragonfly has advantages -> was Re: Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair

[Paul Lambert <[e-mail]>]

On 1/3/14, 6:43 PM, "Trevor Perrin" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Trevor,

>
>But there's a bigger picture:  Regardless of timing attacks, Dragonfly
>is inferior to alternatives already standardized

> 
No. The Dragonfly proposal was submitted by Dan as an IPR free
contribution.
This has considerable value and makes it implementable in consumer
products.

It is also closely related to other work adopted in commercial sytems and
should be pursued as an RFC to ensure it¹s continued vetting.

The discussion has resulted in mitigating risks.  To date I have not seen
any indication that the protocol is Œbroken¹.

I agree that it has more complexity and message exchanges that other
approaches.  These other protocols have NOT been viable to ship in the
products I build.

>or found in the
>literature.
Please write an RFC then.

>
>This opinion was well-expressed on the TLS and CFRG mailing lists when
>Dragonfly was proposed.  This opinion was probably shared by many more
>people than expressed it (like me),

I believe that you have expressed your opinion 12 to 15 times on this
mailing 
list about Dragonfly based on comments and analysis made by other
knowledgeable individuals.

Please let others speak for themselves.


Paul





> and was never adequately
>addressed.  By Dec 2012, I assume most people had tuned-out a
>discussion about an non-useful protocol that was proceeding without
>regard to group opinion.
>
>
>Trevor
>_______________________________________________
>Cfrg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg