MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPofZaGT__FmChCWNf=iMsyD4s7c1SpUus2Lm_6ubhA3ayfGqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55CE5A40.3090804@cs.tcd.ie>
 <CAPofZaGT__FmChCWNf=iMsyD4s7c1SpUus2Lm_6ubhA3ayfGqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 07:24:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG-id0ZYG946xZQrsfrMqyQunLpg=ZeGGP8BcQRVtFE0s7b3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Lloyd-Jones <david.lloydjones@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, phil@dunlop-lello.uk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141b9d6f95c42051d57cee0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/lv7iN-sg-yCYzQ4vFl0gQpmIMY8>
Cc: 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

--001a1141b9d6f95c42051d57cee0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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 <phil@dunlop-lello.uk> 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}
>

--001a1141b9d6f95c42051d57cee0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Stephen,</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>None of=C2=A0</di=
v><a href=3D"http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/#aug12" target=3D"_blank">htt=
p://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/#aug12</a><br><div><a href=3D"http://csrc.nis=
t.gov/publications/PubsFIPS.html#140-2" target=3D"_blank">http://csrc.nist.=
gov/publications/PubsFIPS.html#140-2</a><br></div><div><a href=3D"http://ww=
w.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=3D52906=
" target=3D"_blank">http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogu=
e_detail.htm?csnumber=3D52906</a><br></div><div><a href=3D"http://www.iso.o=
rg/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=3D52906" target=3D"_blank">http://www.=
iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=3D52906</a><br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div>is behind a paywall.</div><div><br></div><div>What is it you have &=
quot;heard,&quot; Stephen, that has given Phil this avalanche of &quot;reas=
on to object&quot;?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>I wouldn&#39;t be surprised =
if some of the documentation within those catalogues costs money.=C2=A0 The=
re was a time in the early days of Oracle when the docs for their basic dat=
abase software cost US$6,000.=C2=A0 I paid US$92 for my IBM equivalent a fe=
w years ago, but these are not paywalls.=C2=A0 They are costs of operating =
docs. =C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>(I suspect that that $6,000 was becau=
se 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 je=
t.)</div><div><br></div><div>Is it a question of that sort of thing?</div><=
div><br></div><div>Parenthetically, I notice that the correspondence thread=
 &quot;Information Security&quot; over on Google+ has recently fractured in=
 two, I would guess because the main feed is full of juvenile ranting.</div=
><div>=C2=A0</div><div>-dlj.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 15 August 2015 at 04:=
23, Phil Lello <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:phil@dunlop-lello.uk=
" target=3D"_blank">phil@dunlop-lello.uk</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I&#39;m not in the US or trading wit=
h US companies, so presumably not affected, but the paywall alone sounds li=
ke 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 sm=
aller pool of suppliers (since it will eliminate those who don&#39;t buy th=
e spec). {snipped}</div></blockquote></div></div></div>

--001a1141b9d6f95c42051d57cee0--