Re: [secdir] [Cfrg] Time to recharter CFRG as a working group? Was: Re: ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts

[mcgrew <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

Let me add few data points from a CFRG-historical perspective.  CFRG has been the first publisher of a number of specifications (for instance, XMSS, Poly1305, and HBS are in this category -  https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/cfrg/documents/) and has done essential review for some ISE-published crypto like UMAC (RFC 4418).   For UMAC, it is worth noting that the ISE reviewers asked for changes around IPR language, and CFRG reviewers made important improvements to the technical content as well (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4418/history/ and CFRG mail threads from fall 2005).  So the issues we are dealing with today are not really new.  

You have started a good, healthy discussion with the points that you have raised.  My thinking is that CFRG (including Kenny, Alexy, and the many contributors) is doing really good, really important work, and the IRTF and IETF should avoid changes that would disrupt it.   

Best,

David

> On Mar 15, 2019, at 2:52 PM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 3/13/2019 7:32 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>> Mike, are your concerns here primarily IPR related?  If that's so, then maybe that's the level at which we should address them, as opposed to flipping the bigger RG->WG switch.
>> 
> 
> Hi Richard -
> 
> Like I said, I'm not going to push this at this time.  But I think its more than just IPR - avoiding technology because of IPR is more a symptom (and in fact is IETF guidance rather than IRTF policy).
> 
> The CFRG has a unique position in that - unlike ANY other RG as far as I can tell - it's looked at as an immediate feeder for technology for the IETF.  If it were agnostically evaluating the crypto properties of any offered technology, I'd say we're good and I'd move on.  But, with the publication of Curve25519 and its related ... standards ..., the CFRG has moved from evaluation and re-publication of cryptographic standards developed and produced elsewhere into being the first publisher of what could only be characterized as standards, even if published as an Informational RFC in the IRTF stream.
> 
> Ultimately, I think it comes down to fairness and transparency. As an RG, the publications of the RG are not subject to the standards appeals process.  In an WG, the decision not to work on an IPR encumbered technology (or others such as national cryptography) MAY be appealed and overturned (or might not) or sponsored by an AD if there's no applicable or agreeable WG. There's a process for showing such decisions were made transparently, and with a broader audience than just the CFRG having a say.
> 
> 
> Later, Mike
> 
> Ps - hmm... Note that the CFRG charter only mentions the IETF and not the IRTF....
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg