Re: [secdir] [Cfrg] ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

FWIW, I'd prefer have fewer and not more modes of operation
documented. I'm not aware of a need for what this draft
appears to specify (based on reading just the abstract). I
also agree the OCB IPR situation isn't clear (IIRC more than
just Rogaway's IPR was involved).

I also don't see a need to document rc5/6 test vectors in
an RFC as they're not really used in Internet protocols
afaik. (If that last was wrong my position on that one could
change.)

For those reasons I'd suggest that the world would be better
if the ISE decided not to publish either.

I'd also argue that the IETF will be generally better off if
we route crypto algorithm/mode and related RFCs via CFRG. That
way we can be more confident of the level of scrutiny and
openness associated with the set of such RFCs. That is a change
from what we (the IETF) used do, which was to send such stuff
to the ISE.

I think it'd be great if we(*) came to consensus that via-CFRG
is a better route for all/almost-all such RFCs than via-ISE.

Cheers,
S.

(*) "we" would I guess need to include the ISE, sec-ads and CFRG.