Re: [saag] NIST requests comments on using ISO/IEC 19790:2012 as the U.S. Federal Standard for cryptographic modules

[David Lloyd-Jones <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

None of
http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/#aug12
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsFIPS.html#140-2
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52906
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52906

is behind a paywall.

What is it you have "heard," Stephen, that has given Phil this avalanche of
"reason to object"?

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the documentation within those
catalogues costs money.  There was a time in the early days of Oracle when
the docs for their basic database software cost US$6,000.  I paid US$92 for
my IBM equivalent a few years ago, but these are not paywalls.  They are
costs of operating docs.

(I suspect that that $6,000 was because Larry knew he was working the
American taxpayer over just one time, and in 1983 that was still real money
to him: gas for the motorbike, not the jet.)

Is it a question of that sort of thing?

Parenthetically, I notice that the correspondence thread "Information
Security" over on Google+ has recently fractured in two, I would guess
because the main feed is full of juvenile ranting.

-dlj.



On 15 August 2015 at 04:23, Phil Lello <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm not in the US or trading with US companies, so presumably not
> affected, but the paywall alone sounds like a reasonable grounds to object
> to me - it prevents reasonable review by people with no reason to buy the
> standard, and presumably also creates a smaller pool of suppliers (since it
> will eliminate those who don't buy the spec). {snipped}
>