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

[Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Dan Harkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, December 21, 2013 4:38 pm, Watson Ladd wrote:
>> The CFRG cochair does not have the ability to declare the result of a
>> last call that
>> never happened because he personally supports a proposal.
>
>   Huh?
>

Kevin said to the TLS WG that the CFRG was fine with it. I don't know
exactly what was
said because it was off list, but the TLS WG understood that the CFRG
(and not just Kevin personally)
supported the protocol. This was wrong.

>> The purpose of the CFRG is not to create standards. It is to advance the
>> usage
>> of cryptography and improve the security of the Internet. The abuses of
>> process
>> committed by Kevin directly harm that goal by enabling a protocol to
>> shortcut
>> the LC process in the CFRG, and thus avoid serious discussion.
>
>   What process are you talking about? There was no LC declared and
> certainly no process that required one before an answer could be
> provided back to the TLS WG.

Are you suggesting that the chairs of the CFRG have the power to decree
something acceptable by themselves, and speak for the CFRG? This is
a ridiculous claim. Whether last call or not, some process would be needed
to decide what the sense of the list was.

>
>   You seem to have invented a process, declared Kevin Igoe in violation
> of it, and concocted a conspiracy theory to explain it all.

I think it is reasonable for the chair to be forced to consult with
the membership before
deciding what the group's position will be, especially when the
conclusions of the CFRG will
be waved around to dismiss concerns about a protocol. Most people in
the IETF couldn't
tell you why the DDH isn't true in GF_{p}^{\times}, or what a pairing
is, or why PKCS 1.5 is worse
than OAEP. The point of the CFRG is that they won't have to: we'll do
the work for them. But that
only works if the CFRG properly represents its membership, and if
other WGs feel that the CFRG
is a useful resource. Do you think Kevin's continued presence as chair
is compatible with these goals?

>
>   Dan.
>
>



-- 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin