Re: [CFRG] Second RGLC on draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves

["Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[e-mail]>]

Dear CFRG,

This is to cancel the Second RGLC for Pairing-Friendly Curves for now.

A part of the questions (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/kAQwgiKejMby4aYONkQzt0ZiOOU/
from Rene Struik with the additional concerns related to the -08 version of
the draft) raised in the list has not been replied publicly. The replies
for other reviews were provided in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2i183zl28y4fK54oIwqEfEVVu0U/;
all later messages contained only support of the draft, but that does not
change the fact that one part of the concerns has not been discussed.

Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience.
The RGLC will be restarted after all received comments are discussed
publicly in the mailing list.

Regards,
Stanislav



On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 18:23, Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Dear Rene,
>
> Yumi replied to the received comments in the following message in
> December:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2i183zl28y4fK54oIwqEfEVVu0U/ (after
> the line "Followings are our reply comments for Rene's comments in RGLC.").
> After that message there were two messages in the mailing list with
> support of the draft, no new concerns.
>
> After that message there was also one clarifying message from Yumi in
> February about the normative references (I asked to send that message since
> I had found out that that comment remained unanswered).
>
> Regards,
> Stanislav
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 15:52, Rene Struik <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stanislav:
>>
>> I am puzzled that the 2nd WGLC is on rev09 of the pairing curve draft
>> (i.e., the one posted on Nov 16th last year).
>>
>> On Nov 11th, I posted another review on rev08 of this document (see [1])
>> {for my review of the previous rev07 version, see [2]}.
>>
>> I could not find any response by the authors to my detailed comments of
>> my rev08 review. Since they posted the current rev09 version (that is under
>> 2nd WGLC) on Nov 16th, considerations of those comments must have happened
>> within that 5-day time window. The authors, however, stated in [3]
>> "Because we are currently considering Rene's latest comments, I'm sorry but
>> this version does not reflect them".
>>
>> Isn't the normal step to consider received comments? If so, isn't the 2nd
>> WGLC premature?
>>
>> (FYI - the authors only commented - after almost four months - on my
>> minor note regarding normative vs. informative reference classification,
>> but not at all on the much larger review I did in [1].)
>>
>> Best regards, Rene
>>
>> [1] Review RS of draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-08 (Nov 11,
>> 2020):
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/kAQwgiKejMby4aYONkQzt0ZiOOU/
>>
>> [2] Review RS of draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-07 (July 12,
>> 2020):
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/pW71h3yUETnqedHsH0m3rwzPnm4/
>>
>> [2] Message Yumi Sakemi on draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-09
>> (Nov 16, 2020):
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/NNpHIWGOvsSBd22gg7Ve10zDhT4/
>>
>>
>> On 2021-03-18 7:04 a.m., Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev wrote:
>>
>> Dear CFRG participants,
>>
>> This message starts a second 3-week RGLC on "Pairing-Friendly Curves"
>> (draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-09), that will end on April 9th.
>> See
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves/
>> for the latest version of the draft.
>>
>> We are having the second RGLC since Yumi Sakemi has provided (see
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2-LVS6EXc4TfY1zlHRGUXe3cu6w/)
>> replies for the questions raised after the first RGLC.
>>
>> Please send your comments, as well as expression of support to publish as
>> an RFC (or possible reasons for not doing so) in reply to this message or
>> directly to CFRG chairs.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stanislav, Nick and Alexey
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CFRG mailing [e-mail]://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>
>>
>> --
>> email: [e-mail] | Skype: rstruik
>> cell: [phone] | US: [phone]
>>
>>