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

Stephen Farrell <> Tue, 24 December 2013 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 268001AE3C2 for <>; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 19:41:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Ieogi3mDksp for <>; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 19:41:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0601AE3CB for <>; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 19:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F4176BE58; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 03:41:22 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qFLT8lA-iXG8; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 03:41:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B715CBE50; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 03:41:21 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 03:41:11 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tao Effect <>, John Viega <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
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, 24 Dec 2013 03:41:30 -0000

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

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.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)