Re: [saag] CFRG, CFRG crypto review panel and IETF consensus

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 18/04/2024 21:45, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> To be more concrete: I think at one point Paul described the
>> crypto panel review as a consensus process which it's not.
>>
> I don't know enough to have an opinion on this statement.

Fair enough. As I've seen it the crypto panel do great stuff,
along the lines of secdir reviews, but usually better, but
that is not a consensus process.

>> The 2nd mis-statement was that an AD should not sponsor
>> any document that had received a negative opinion from CFRG,
>> which I think oversteps the bounds of IRTF/IETF interactions.
>>
> This doesn't seem like a misstatement but rather a position you
> happen to disagree with. With that said, 

The problem I see (with which others may fairly disagree) is
with generalising from one AD declining to AD-sponsor one
document, to saying that no AD ought do that. I'd argue that
casting that as a mis-statement is appropriate.

If the IESG collectively wanted to assert some sort of "CFRG
must be happy" statement, I'd be fine with that, but I figure
it'd be hard to get that text correct, and better to stick with
the status-quo where crypto-panel or CFRG advice is treated
seriously, but is not, by itself, blocking.

> I think it's entirely
> within the realm of discretion of an AD to choose not to sponsor
> documents with negative opinions from any group of people
> they trust (or, for that matter, to sponsor no documents at all).

Fully agree, and I didn't question that at all.

> 
> Do you have some citation to an IETF document that says otherwise?

Yes:-) Happy to look up IRTF vs. IETF stuff tomorrow if needed, but
I don't think it is.

Cheers,
S.