Re: Escalation: time commitment to fix *production* security bugs for BLS RFC v4?

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Mon, 26 April 2021 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B359A3A250B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 MDx5vZfEsssF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8C413A250C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id b38so23420277ljf.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=W25GzHS/PfshqCfFIOgLAqfbOtB1q+sPjrhsOanmJe4=; b=VBhSHbOxsp+0BovMYsodN3fa73RUSGT8ykjZwchKa/ChKC4XnVsuUtQRbDHRCnHst8 bncm8xEfYyHzCromq5zwoxBhPRitJVeTag7sw1uyxLEPzfe4PNcq9SIAfGtIVcSo0NMc 4BaXHLVMbpqVJlTGqyQAmZTUOHkMfplJEJtW3EcBYGgBQ8YJKSpWgqxGMelnK9f7cfJL R9lgEsxfTodliCukgHKSL4wnCnA9xuffs6uq3i/drJhMLLpNMRAYesHugupYSbjfHnYL y/F/NbGCY0NlMfHz8NVhnXTJQrlJ9UTpmgeL1DoBiV4f2dC2fa2w9uekYehpGPA9FrpX MInA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=W25GzHS/PfshqCfFIOgLAqfbOtB1q+sPjrhsOanmJe4=; b=O0YNYAdY4bY/TJB6AcwRM6NrN+RO2yNQSKTYoi+SUNdEnjG/RlNnqpNgfah9U6BLfL z3TIuW8hQcjBplqeMBVNxnhaBXNuTba00W8tfEaS1k2frjiGRX7xpjRpibZ1DIWsaipE qUuO5AqV6Xu6iWEqBu/XF7LIoa0LlPcEzOqcse8Fx26JqiY8xBC324yjE3y0Jcdgd1NW D0T0M7CaYZF7X6k5M5PTE3YQPwN0MKdFvc5Ktr6WcbSDwVbeUN7gEpN7LIgqBHExvXdL o8H7EEOGaKb1ojFxnnlQVHFZlC5L7Gqe5qtUYZiNxEClxGsVToHPtdzei8kShIYD3QJl FRvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530BNllrQaeyYudj//TkgmibVINtwUqkimwpYO3/NFuEb0Eocc+2 Cle87Sw4jmMBM244pEDJn867W5BftDqfcA2n8PfaVA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQUyqbh9OgtRGuJvU/o/3NGkJuk33ceI5f86cXSP+s0OAK+AML8UOyac9EptlmQ/EjPBoRDLRY5PMpnFeFAGw=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:bc0c:: with SMTP id b12mr13427869ljf.502.1619450662765; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAEB6g=tU=MF1_QKduEN55ft0rWe+7x0wBbywS083fJrjzP=XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAEB6gn+QWuCX4BxCJuofz6JF6amaPtWiDtg7ZAmRT9FwaX8vA@mail.gmail.com> <C2025926-ECD9-4846-BE36-9B243000DF5F@akamai.com> <CAAEB6gm710=5KrNEpVPWRKpMWFupcYFuCBiHP80=BwOormiABg@mail.gmail.com> <30B2523F-F116-454A-BE64-349A260F54D7@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <30B2523F-F116-454A-BE64-349A260F54D7@akamai.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:23:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+ut6KXRUfdPUAAUHJFY9=sowa7VjYrh4+ZwKGcFEQ+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Escalation: time commitment to fix *production* security bugs for BLS RFC v4?
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Quan Thoi Minh Nguyen <msuntmquan@gmail.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007c5db005c0e1bd12"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AvtIkrgLFqF2XUIaliABhUYJfiY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:24:30 -0000

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:08 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
>    - I appreciate your clarification on the terminology but if you search
>    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/?q=standard
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/?q=standard__;!!GjvTz_vk!E6xjtvvy1OXYy0pOqqYwHelJmVfKLyxuhxijwbMY0JhN1D8TGyK8p8VPIfqi$>
>    or https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/?q=rfc
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/?q=rfc__;!!GjvTz_vk!E6xjtvvy1OXYy0pOqqYwHelJmVfKLyxuhxijwbMY0JhN1D8TGyK8px-e6ChD$>,
>    thousands of results show up.
>
>  That doesn’t matter.  What matters is what the document **is**
>
>
>
> I can post a message saying “I have a standard way to remove fleas from
> dogs using software”  But that doesn’t make it an Internet-Draft, let alone
> a standards-track RFC.
>

Obligatory: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-11

W

>
>


-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra