[Cfrg] Fwd: [saag] possible BCP on public review being needed for standards-track crypto

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

FYI. Please send comments to [e-mail].

If you just want to say "+1" that's as useful here I guess,
but if you think this is a bad idea, please explain why on
the saag list, and of course any detailed comments should
go to the saag list.

Thanks,
S.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [saag] possible BCP on public review being needed for
standards-track crypto
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:45:10 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>


Hiya,

Rich Salz has put together an initial stab at a draft of a BCP [1]
that says "for IETF standards track, crypto algorithms need to
have had public analysis." (Thanks Rich!)

I think this'd be a good thing to progress but as you'll see the
-00 submitted just at the cutoff needs a good bit of work. (Still
great to have a starting point though, so thanks again Rich:-)

So, please read and comment on [e-mail]. As well as getting
detailed comments, I'd also be interested in whether or not
folks think the basic premise is something it'd be good to have
as a BCP, so thumbs-up/down messages are also useful at this
point. (If "thumbs-down" please say why, if "thumbs-up" then
later detailed wrangling over text will be fine.)

We'll have a short 5-min slot for this in the saag session in B-A
just to bring it to folks' attention.  If there are issues that
we don't resolve on the list (e.g. I'd expect that getting a good
enough description of "public review" might be tricky) we can have
a more extended discussion about this at saag in Berlin.

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rsalz-drbg-speck-wap-wep