Re: [Cfrg] Enough already!

"Dan Harkins" <> Tue, 27 January 2015 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B308E1A7035 for <>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.467
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5SUMLNAjeS3f for <>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621D01A6EFB for <>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53BD10224008; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (SquirrelMail authenticated user by with HTTP; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:47 -0800
From: Dan Harkins <>
To: Watson Ladd <>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Enough already!
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:59:49 -0000

On Tue, January 27, 2015 8:42 am, Watson Ladd wrote:
> Does anyone have any security objection to what's in the original TLS
> draft?
> So why can't the TLS WG proceed with it?
> Are we seriously going to spend another month (if we're lucky!)
> arguing about endianness?
> This is a catastrophe we should be sure not to repeat at higher
> security levels by making rules and having a competition as opposed to
> go play a game of Calvinball.
> If we can't expeditiously answer basic questions in a reasonable
> timeframe, people are going to avoid asking those questions. And they
> are going to be worse off for it. The CFRG was sorely underutilized in
> the past: I don't see any reason why a IETF WG would ask us anything
> now.


  We are answering basic questions, you just don't like the answers.

> A month ago I accused the chairs of continuing the farce. That was too
> nice: it's a full-blown fiasco now. And I don't see any plans to avoid
> it in the future. A year later, and we have a starting point with
> unspecified future changes being considered, and arguments that popped
> up over that year, coming back to life.

  Apparently your naiveté has finally been confronted with reality. Last
year I told you it would take something like 2 years to get an RFC published.
You said no, it should only take 30 minutes. This is how sausage gets