Re: [Cfrg] EC - next steps to get draft-irtf-cfrg-curves done

[Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 10, 2015 9:42 AM, "Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>
>
> Thanks to the chairs for trying this approach. I've answered
> your first poll, but I'd also like to say that I'm entirely
> fine if the chairs use their judgement to evaluate poll responses
> and I hope you do not limit yourselves to purely mechanical
> evaluations. That's because it's inevitable that people will
> question the questions, as has happened already;-) And we
> don't want to have to re-do a bunch of polls I hope.

I'm surprised that you consider implicitly rejecting 2^448-2^224-1 for
unstated arguments a good idea, given your openness to supporting it.

Then again the CFRG leadership has refused to judge between rival proposals
on technical grounds, instead choosing to poll what amounts to a bunch of
random people. The best arguments, not the popularity of bad arguments,
should carry the day.

The IETF leadership has likewise decided to turn what should have been a
straightforward evaluation of a proposed mechanism into a lengthy and
unwarranted design by committe exercise. If we're serious about reducing
the number of options, we shouldn't turn around and accept national
standard after national standard. If we're going to try the crypto
standardization game, we should use the methods that produced standards
like AES, not ones that require people willing to put forward proposals to
sit through increasingly lengthy and irrelevant threads, for fears the
chairs will attempt to call consensus despite strong technical arguments
against the position being put forward.

This is not an idle fear: it's exactly what happened in November with
regards to the primes put forward at higher levels.

If all possible arguments have been put forward, it shouldn't be
controversial which proposals are better than others, at least for most
comparisons, and all that remains is to pick between a few local maxima.
But that's not what is being done.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd
>
> So thanks again and please use your good judgement in how you
> go about determining rough consensus where you see that exists.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
> On 10/02/15 10:44, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> > Chairs discussed next steps for finishing draft-irtf-cfrg-curves and
> > what kind of questions CFRG needs to be asked in order to get progress.
> > We are planning to do a series of polls/consensus calls, approximately
> > every 7 days, and for some questions even more frequently.(*)
> >
> > Chairs would remind everybody not to rehash old arguments. Pointing to
> > older messages where such arguments were made would be much more
> > preferable.
> >
> > Chairs are also asking people to stay on topic and only discuss the
> > current set of issues at any given time. Comments/opinions made on
> > future or unrelated topics are likely to be ignored by chairs and
> > offenders will be told off-list.
> >
> > Chairs are also thinking about asking one of the CFRG participants to
> > keep track of other [new] issues with draft-irtf-cfrg-curves. If you are
> > interested to help, please contact chairs directly.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Alexey, for CFRG chairs
> >
> > (*) - while chairs might not summaries results of each poll/consensus
> > call right away, the RG should have expectation to move to the next set
> > of questions after the deadline from the previous poll/consensus call is
> > reached. Chairs reserve the right to extend deadlines if new information
> > is presented, but this will not be the default mode of operation.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cfrg mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/
<http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>cfrg