Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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



On 12/24/2013 03:29 AM, Tao Effect wrote:
> 1. Whether the recommendations made by the CFRG are good.

Then question those, as appropriate.

AFAICS, there was discussion of dragonfly and Kevin reported
fairly on that. I can buy a criticism that too much of that
discussion was at f2f meetings and not on list, but honestly,
as Yoav said, and as demonstrated by the TLS WG chairs
conclusion - nobody really cares about dragonfly except Dan,
and those opposing dragonfly. (Incidentally Dan has done
loads of fabulous work in the IETF that I do know about.
I can buy arguments that's he's right on wrong on this one,
but arguments that he's some kind of bad person are just
nonsense.)

If you find the dragonfly thing problematic, then you will
presumably find the fact that Kevin also reported to the TLS
WG that chacha20 was fine equally problematic. From my pov
that was subject to only a little more CFRG discussion, even
though its far more significant. And in that case the CFRG
conclusion that Kevin again correctly reported is one that
takes us outside the NIST suite-B box. (Luckily, the salsa/chcaha
thing has been well-debated in the academic crypto community
so there was far less angst than in the dragonfly discussion.)

If you or someone else were not a part of those discussions
then your first duty is to review the list archive and not
to make assumptions as to what might have happened.

S.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSuQJXAAoJEC88hzaAX42imeYH/02kz6PMkVCXlnPbj7Q/TbVK
9LQnr26WUTZGeQs+8bAg+oPMTkAbwXatMj9T5ReP2HQaR1KNIcZPsngF051ou7Ya
Tp42Es7QZDQ35JUBQnZ+4MTXC2RYp5tTtwPgt5oretPyKpZlYh8tiOw1Ya3M+g/3
+3+YNXxijA2qiLfxkkMVA9dV3YjHVOGXt48/ONVNkSgKWJsAcHjps/Kvw3WtCiME
kkDP6AxWiqdXfFWMehs46LgUlgrJMKKxMrmnsq0U9MPwD+ODvae0KqUb7U6bP6lP
pbtpeFwYMbY+ZiQXXNkSkbWDtn22AXdjvbx5UJA0asfaLx0MyxBEagocC9Fjvjk=
=RiX6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----