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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Watson,
At 10:18 AM 18-04-2024, Watson Ladd wrote:
>I am quite confused about how the relation between IETF work and CFRG
>work and the crypto review panel is supposed to work. In the SSH
>NTRUPrime discussion it appears that a negative report from the crypto
>review panel is reason not to standardize an algorithm choice or
>register it in the IETF space for a protocol, and that this comes
>without discussion of the merits and consensus among even the CFRG
>participants.
>
>I don't recall this being the way things used to work, and I think its
>had very negative effects on the way the CFRG functions, as well as
>stretching the IETF/IRTF distinction beyond the breaking point. Simply
>put having knock out contests like we did for curves and PAKES,
>combined with an endless series of reviews and last calls creates some
>very adversarial debates and raises tensions and hampers cooperation.
>It also moves away from the running code part and rough consensus: if
>a group of people have made choices that work for them, we now make
>ourselves irrelevant by saying no rather than trying to accommodate
>their concerns. The CFRG review panel is not well placed to have these
>conversations as it knows nothing of the broader context and has very
>limited interaction with the proposal.
>
>It also puts the CFRG into a place where it is making standardization
>choices that properly being to the IETF, and not even the CFRG but a
>subpanel. The massive backlog of documents results in part from an
>extremely lengthy process even after RGLC, which I think results in
>part from the higher perceived stakes.
>
>This isn't to say that we should abandon security examination of
>proposed algorithms, but it's pretty clear that we have treated
>cryptographic primitives very differently in ways that undermine core
>principles of the IETF process.

I agree with what you wrote about the IETF/IRTF distinction.

It took me a while to locate the following thread: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/-ytU2xxbJu5tE5zfNK4aQqVq8EU/ 
It might contain answers to some of the points which were raised 
during the debates.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy