IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] Citing specs in specs

Jon Callas <jon@callas.org> Mon, 03 March 2014 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jon@callas.org>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411671A0CA3 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:52:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cRP-YmuMt-Nk for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:52:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [173.164.244.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2BA1A0D31 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:52:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.merrymeet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54834E5D44D for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:52:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at merrymeet.com
Received: from mail.merrymeet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (merrymeet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id siCUJuby4C7q for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:52:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (keys.merrymeet.com [173.164.244.97]) by mail.merrymeet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 760FB4E5D424 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:52:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.23.100] ([173.164.244.98]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Sun, 02 Mar 2014 22:52:31 -0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Sun, 02 Mar 2014 22:52:31 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>
In-Reply-To: <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D018B8516C6E@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 22:52:28 -0800
Message-Id: <7A2637AF-5A16-404B-B7A1-49FB17D5345A@callas.org>
References: <530FDC7A.4060404@cisco.com> <CABqy+srTqCXjOR4DMNgWyxf2pZ7dwZfWyznhBuJaY5w8VeuR4Q@mail.gmail.com> <5310B12E.4070603@cisco.com> <CABqy+srrbtdHOckjPqTj5SFuQwQEqXBjgc8kwagMi8E6ZRf=qg@mail.gmail.com> <28A7736F-A791-4552-8D42-DB99AC7B7F9B@vpnc.org> <CF37EA5F.338D8%paul@marvell.com> <CACsn0cmewBrOzaRF5XXC1p1A_gUSwkdE1_7V-1x8nta-ESyA+A@mail.gmail.com> <CF38F2D4.33940%paul@marvell.com> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C711EF97AD05@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D018B8516C6E@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com>
To: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-PGP-Encoding-Format: Partitioned
X-PGP-Encoding-Version: 2.0.2
X-Content-PGP-Universal-Saved-Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-PGP-Universal-Saved-Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/RZ39RjZXKcvWRr0Y88PeydwSufs
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>, Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Citing specs in specs
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 06:52:47 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mar 2, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> wrote:

> Implementations are possible by using the readily available open source
> implementation.  This is a good thing, but it is also desirable
> to have a unambiguous description of the algorithms that is not 
> a C code file.  This is why we write RFCs...

It's hard to disagree with this, in a similar way that it's hard to disagree with the idea of peace on earth, living at one with nature, etc.

But in practice, code needs to be in a computer language rather than English and I've seen (and been involved with) a document that started with rough consensus and running code, translated that into English, and the English was (and is) devilishly hard to compile back into C.

Portably implemented algorithms are hard to do in any computer language. They're harder to do in words. I don't see how you're going to get an unambiguous description of the language in anything but a computer language. It doesn't have to be C, it could be Python, Ruby, or Algol-58 (which I mention because it was originally designed as an algorithmic description language). English is a suboptimal implementation language.

	Jon


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 3.2.0 (Build 1672)
Charset: us-ascii

wj8DBQFTFCavsTedWZOD3gYRAnpnAJ0ZcUx6IORfqXfNPqNa1lhoicmceQCgyrpm
RboNDDmmWv0tv0zoAMaFuSo=
=8K3M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email