MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <97152.1439858222@eng-mail01.juniper.net>
References: <55CE5A40.3090804@cs.tcd.ie>
 <CAPofZaGT__FmChCWNf=iMsyD4s7c1SpUus2Lm_6ubhA3ayfGqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG-id0ZYG946xZQrsfrMqyQunLpg=ZeGGP8BcQRVtFE0s7b3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <55CF35B2.9020302@cs.tcd.ie>
 <CACz1E9rg8ZtHLCpZ8utBF67PTOiDKWTDGvepqL0SXL_0WR0=+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <97152.1439858222@eng-mail01.juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:33:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPofZaGf4U_7hccU-nMQ9QEuFnbJWa8Pemmzs=hxTec3vtH7rA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phil Lello <phil@dunlop-lello.uk>
To: "Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c625878aa26051d929df6
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/6oPRbdoj1WkF_l51rHDOA7xTAqY>
Cc: "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [saag] NIST requests comments on using ISO/IEC 19790:2012 as
 the U.S. Federal Standard for cryptographic modules
Precedence: list

--089e013c625878aa26051d929df6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I'd just like to clarify that my objection to the paywall isn't about
paying for the standard per-se, as it would be reasonable to pay a fee as
an implementor (much like paying to access C++ standards to write a
compiler). The objection is specifically about needing to pay to access the
standard as part of a review process, as the fee is a barrier to broad
evaluation.

Phil

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Mark D. Baushke <mdb@juniper.net> wrote:

> It may be worth noting that NIST actually put the wrong edition of the
> ISO/IEC standard in the Federal Register article... They intended to put
> 19790:2012 instead.
>
> See also
>
>   http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/notices.html
>
>            -- Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>

--089e013c625878aa26051d929df6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I&#39;d just like to clarify that my objection to the=
 paywall isn&#39;t about paying for the standard per-se, as it would be rea=
sonable to pay a fee as an implementor (much like paying to access C++ stan=
dards to write a compiler). The objection is specifically about needing to =
pay to access the standard as part of a review process, as the fee is a bar=
rier to broad evaluation.<br><br></div>Phil<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_ex=
tra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Mark D=
. Baushke <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mdb@juniper.net" target=
=3D"_blank">mdb@juniper.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex">It may be worth noting that NIST actually put the wrong edition of=
 the<br>
ISO/IEC standard in the Federal Register article... They intended to put<br=
>
19790:2012 instead.<br>
<br>
See also<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/notices.html" rel=3D=
"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/notices=
.html</a><br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-- Mark<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
saag mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:saag@ietf.org">saag@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag" rel=3D"noreferrer" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--089e013c625878aa26051d929df6--