Re: WG Review: CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption (curdle)

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Wed, 09 December 2015 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDDA1B2EC3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:23:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 G4u0fscEfg_t for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:23:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [148.163.129.52]) (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 2A3EC1B2EC1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:23:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.7.64.21]) by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id CCE642004E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:23:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine
Received: from xpasc.com (h-68-164-244-186.snva.ca.megapath.net [68.164.244.186]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2-us1.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 37804200B1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:23:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB9MNMOQ000765 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:23:22 -0800
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:23:22 -0800
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Review: CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption (curdle)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjT8ePQzT7=qts=2qunAWYA3RKzs3M2d4uAeL7eh2R9TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1512091417110.7652@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <20151204170507.5160.44472.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56656C43.5070501@alvestrand.no> <56656DD2.9010609@cs.tcd.ie> <029801d13270$30c68ea0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAMm+LwhsjsbxOWTCHhh450ORxp8itLf=-3+CUDd7NXSUxm=BWg@mail.gmail.com> <00ba01d132a5$8f6af880$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAMm+LwjT8ePQzT7=qts=2qunAWYA3RKzs3M2d4uAeL7eh2R9TQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-MDID: KRI3xMeTR-oi
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tIRruB_UkQdWKretwuo57w5wRbY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 22:23:30 -0000


On Wed, 9 Dec 2015, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

>
> I really could not care less what the format that they had chosen is. But having to juggle three
> when one would have been enough only makes the whole process less reliable and less user friendly.

It has always seemed to me that these variant formats I've encountered are
a 'feature' of product implementation rather than the space the IETF normally
standardizes. I'm not suggesting that one format isn't desireable, just
wondering where the agreement should be reached.