Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_D1A45340-026A-4486-9BCB-971E786EF32A";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Nex6|Bill <n6ghost@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150101203734.GF24442@localhost>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:37:58 -0800
Message-Id: <493F162A-E924-49C9-A5B6-D169CFED7DD0@yahoo.com>
References: <CAMfhd9V4tnjQL-orjTjX3KS=-XZRn0snAPrVwmP6pZH_20Cfgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1420033807.4638.16.camel@scientia.net>
 <CAMfhd9V5-Y60fGqCDfmCvk9+9bqm0zpm3kSHmR5_mzELZ2K+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1420042774.10106.10.camel@scientia.net>
 <CACsn0c=jEXhbUQt7FqZ_KqYQqq0NJsdZow=TEZ2G0te2SUb0RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141231221420.GX24442@localhost>
 <EF65C8DD-840B-48AA-8B84-73E8FD809ECA@isode.com>
 <20150101203734.GF24442@localhost>
To: tls@ietf.org
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/q-mWu59gW_ZZniDOb5aadcbL_mo>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Reconsider TLS/CFRG relationship (Re: should the CFRG
 really strive for consensus?)
Precedence: list

--Apple-Mail=_D1A45340-026A-4486-9BCB-971E786EF32A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Jan 1, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> [Reply-To set to tls@ietf.org.]
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 05:52:55PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>> On 31 Dec 2014, at 22:14, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> [Elided here is a sub-thread about how much trouble CFRG has had =
making
> decisions, and how unsuited they are to the task.  These were opinions
> stated by others.  My response was that if CFRG can't choose, that's
> fine, let CFRG do what it's good at (cryptology), and let the IETF do
> what it's good at (engineering).
>=20
> For the benefit of ietf@ietf.org readers, the context is that CFRG was
> tasked with producing recommendations for the TLS WG, but CFRG seems
> mired in debate about them.  =46rom my point of view the risk is that =
the
> logjam won't soon be broken.]
>=20
>>> Let the IRTF publish one or more documents describing various curves
>>> suitable for use in Internet protocols.  The IETF can pick from =
among
>>> those.
>>=20
>> That is not what TLS WG /SEC AD asked for. They would rather CFRG =
make
>> a choice that can be used in TLS and other places, instead of letting
>> each IETF WG make their own different choice.
>=20
> We may have to reconsider this then.
>=20
> If it is really true that CFRG is not adept at making choices, then =
let
> the cryptologists document algorithms (including their cryptographic
> attributes, pros, cons, cryptanalysis, general performance analysis,
> security considerations, and an overall assessment), and let the
> engineers pick from among them.  I.e., what we've always done at the
> IETF.
>=20
> This might require some process (a call for consensus in the TLS WG?),
> but once done CFRG will be freed to do what it's good at, and to do it
> more quickly because there will be no more lengthy arguments about =
what
> to choose.  Authors will publish I-Ds, reviewers will review them, and
> barring any serious problems, CFRG will progress those I-Ds.  The TLS
> (and other) WGs can then choose what they like.
>=20
> I don't mean to start a debate about this _now_.  Rather, now is the
> time point out that we may have to have this debate, possibly before =
the
> next time we ask the IRTF for recommendations.
>=20
> Nico
>=20

I have been following this list for awhile, but have not posted =
anything, but; I am not sure I agree with the above.
if the CFRG does not =E2=80=9Cpick=E2=80=9D or recommend, and instead =
just publish about said algorithms, and IETF then just picks
whatever they want, not sure how that would ensure the best algorithms =
get picked and put into standards.

would it not be better, to work on CFRG processess so it can produce a =
recommendation? is not good debate good?
why would it be better to have less debate?

I think in this day and age, we need to be careful and which algortithms =
get into standards.

-Nex6



--Apple-Mail=_D1A45340-026A-4486-9BCB-971E786EF32A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=K5HW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_D1A45340-026A-4486-9BCB-971E786EF32A--