Re: [saag] SHA-1 to SHA-n transition

We have a choice here.

Either we have a debate in which people bring up rational technical points or we have a free for all in which people claim a privileged position that allows them to block any proposed change to the status quo without giving a technical reason that can be challeged.

My gut is telling me that we have a very serious problem that is going to bite us down the road. And I can give solid technical reasons to back that feeling.

We have the same set of arguments whenever someone suggests that the IETF consider practical deployment issues. It is never the right time to raise these issues and they are never raised in the right way.

Let us stick to the technical issues here:

* Is the current transition plan viable or does it fail in the way that I predict
* Is the proposed solution viable?
* Is there a better solution?

________________________________

From: saag-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of der Mouse
Sent: Wed 2/25/2009 2:46 PM
To: saag@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [saag] SHA-1 to SHA-n transition

> As with an earlier case where a past Security AD blocked a necessary
> protocol change because it 'gave him a bad gut feeling'.  While
> making decisions based on the examination of intestines was all the
> rage in ancient Rome, it should be avoided.

I don't know the particular case you're talking about, nor do I really
want to, so I specifically want to avoid commenting on that case.  But
I would hesitate to summarily write off the gut feeling of someone
experienced, which is more or less what I read your second sentence as;
much of what experience _is_ amounts to training one's gut feeling.

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML                mouse@rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
saag@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag