IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Sun, 29 December 2013 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8728E1AE184 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:42:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.638
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_92=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MSxZuI2JanlR for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:42:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DE11AE061 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:42:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.147]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rBT8gYqh025980; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 10:42:34 +0200
X-CheckPoint: {52BFDBDF-4-1B221DC2-1FFFF}
Received: from DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.3.77]) by IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.2.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 10:42:34 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: idontneedcoffee <idontneedcoffee@gmail.com>, "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
Thread-Index: AQHO/Z0GA3BlhF+KHU6H6qtjm4+BSppisTAAgAByKICAAHCEgIAACKEAgAAO6wCAAARtAIAAHg+AgAAfLoCAArnEgIABayaAgAHIyoCAAACeAIAAA6AAgAAgiYCAAFHSAIAAlx+Q
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 08:42:34 +0000
Message-ID: <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC302772121B47919@DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com>
References: <CAGZ8ZG2f9QHX40RcB8aajWvEfG0Gh_uewu2Rq7bQGHYNx6cOmw@mail.gmail.com> <52B91820.9090706@cisco.com> <CAGZ8ZG02+o=Qm0gUQiVF9H_=wfn+wQt8ahY1ntLHNsELXbvtVg@mail.gmail.com> <AA79A33E-D6B9-4693-A670-B4458011B394@cisco.com> <CA+cU71mTCVHAe2a46USJihr9ihPVw_vQTu0xk-mpRp41La88Xg@mail.gmail.com> <e4054b534e308e3c17c22ccf987d3edc.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <E7E97A5B-455F-4ABD-A182-DF6DC38F3429@taoeffect.com> <199f08bb0a197065184a07bed40e4e1a.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <545E0C9B-5C24-43EA-85BE-03A13D70C2E2@taoeffect.com> <52BC6A6F.2000807@cisco.com> <52BD9B11.2000202@akr.io> <193E5491-B78A-483F-A93F-01B0AE389D36@taoeffect.com> <CABqy+sqmA71fpDV_yXbPs0PPadUBUdC-GPJHKe79pL-CqdvnEg@mail.gmail.com> <21D9F5B2-0CD5-44BF-8DA3-71807DD957E9@taoeffect.com> <CF928475-67F5-4B52-846D-199483406397@vpnc.org> <52BF7DBC.1000405@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52BF7DBC.1000405@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [91.90.139.27]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: protection disabled
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC302772121B47919DAGEX10adcheckp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 08:42:46 -0000

Wouldn't endorsing ROT13 as the alternate cipher achieve the same goal?

From: Cfrg [mailto:cfrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of idontneedcoffee
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 3:41 AM
To: cfrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair

I think Kevin should stay as a co-chair. Thanks to the recent "leaks" of his employer,
he brings a lot of (needed*) attention to CFRG/IETF; if he would resign, most critics
would consider(most of) their work done, it would lower the level of mistrust against
cfrg from the general itsec crowd and that would in end-effect leave all the processes
outlined in this thread as ineffective/questionable in tact. It wouldn't solve a single issue
of the proponents of this notion(please think it through..) and undermine the only
measure that can be effective(in limited circumstances) - public audit/control

in short > If Kevin stays, every step of CFRG will be thoroughly watched by hundreds
of motivated people - I would not want to give them an easy way to vent their
frustration when there is some real work(..) that can be fuelled by it..


/idnc

On 12/28/2013 09:48 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com><mailto:contact@taoeffect.com> wrote:



Oh, that's right, I think I remember now that to reach consensus it needs there to be "no objections" within some sort "reasonableness"?



No, that's not it either. The IRTF (this is not the IETF) uses a consensus process that is based on loose agreement among reasonable people.



If that's the case then please just ignore that email.



Done.



--Paul Hoffman

_______________________________________________

Cfrg mailing list

Cfrg@irtf.org<mailto:Cfrg@irtf.org>

http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg



Email secured by Check Point

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email