Re: [Cfrg] Round 2 of the PAKE selection process

["Hao, Feng" <[e-mail]>]

OK. My last email on this subject (sorry for folks on the list if it looks like a spam)

If a coherent panel summary for the round 1 result is too much to ask for, please ignore me.

Best wishes,
Feng

From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 13:14
To: "Hao, Feng" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Round 2 of the PAKE selection process

Dear Feng,

All materials of the PAKE selection process were published at https://github.com/cfrg/pake-selection. The questions that were addressed had been collected from the CFRG at Stage 1 of the selection process (and all collected questions were included to the list), then answered by the authors of the protocols - all those materials can be found at the GitHub, as well as the reviews by the independent reviewers who evaluated them (see https://github.com/cfrg/pake-selection#summary-of-reviews). The Crypto Review Panel experts then provided their overall reviews, taking into account all collected materials and reviews from independent experts.

Their recommendations, published at https://github.com/cfrg/pake-selection#overall-reviews-by-crypto-review-panel, have become the resulting summary (prepared by four experts of the Crypto Review Panel independently). The PAKEs, selection of which were recommended at least by some of the four experts, have passed to Round 2. Additional questions about these four candidates (e.g., my clarifying question about possible ways of selection of M and N) are collected now until December, 5th.

Regards,
Stanislav


чт, 21 нояб. 2019 г. в 15:36, Hao, Feng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
Dear Stanislav,
If these questions are relevant, has the panel already considered them? If not, they probably will not bother for the next round either. If they have, it's reasonable for the panel to publish a summary of reasons to explain the decision in the interest of complete openness and transparency. That will be useful for the people on this list to better understand how the decision has been made, and how it will be made in round 2.
Cheers,
Feng

From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 06:35
To: "Hao, Feng" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: CFRG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Round 2 of the PAKE selection process

Dear Feng,

>>   I appreciate all the efforts put in by the panel. I respect how this process is currently run and the result, so I don’t intend to change anything. But I hope these questions are still relevant and helpful for the round 2.
Thank you, Feng!

I fully agree that all these questions are still relevant for the Round 2 (especially the ones that are addressed in the four Crypto Review Panel overall reviews less deeply than the others). Could you please formulate the questions that need to be considered (or maybe re-considered, taking into account new aspects) on Round 2?..
If possible, in the form of a list of clear and reasonably short questions - to be added to the overall list of the questions considered on Round 2 (according to the announcement, could you please send them to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, please?)

This will be a very important and helpful input of yours - among other things, because the issues you mention should also be addressed in the future RFC on recommendations for usage of PAKEs in the IETF protocols (provided that it will be the next step of the CFRG after the PAKE selection process is over).

Kind regards,
Stanislav