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

Yoav Nir <> Sun, 29 December 2013 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8728E1AE184 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:42:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.638
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MSxZuI2JanlR for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:42:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DE11AE061 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:42:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (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 ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 10:42:34 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <>
To: idontneedcoffee <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 08:42:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
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-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: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 08:42:46 -0000

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

From: Cfrg [] On Behalf Of idontneedcoffee
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 3:41 AM
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..


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

On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Tao Effect <><> 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.


--Paul Hoffman


Cfrg mailing list<>

Email secured by Check Point