[Ssh] Re: WG Review: Secure Shell Maintenance (sshm)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

Yep, as I said, I'm not getting into the mega-quoting game.
I did respond to the lack of substance in your "unanswered
concerns" claim. I see nothing below that wasn't discussed
sufficiently in developing the charter.

Thanks,
S.

On 9/8/24 06:59, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Stephen Farrell writes:
>> Your claim that these are unanswered concerns is just plain wrong.
> 
> Then it should be very easy to reply to my quotes of the concerns by
> interleaving _quotes_ that supposedly answered those concerns. Any other
> form of response simply convinces readers that I was correct in saying
> that concerns about the WG were expressed and not answered.
> 
>>> There are many more examples.
>> I don't see what you think you'll gain from such exaggeration.
> 
> Another three examples are quoted below. How many do you need to see
> before you withdraw this "exaggeration" claim?
> 
> ---D. J. Bernstein
> 
> 
> Theo de Raadt writes:
>> One thing occured after this: The release of NIST Kyber, and there is an
>> unresolved patent claim, and my gut says that is the real drive behind
>> reaching out to SSH, because SSH stewardship made non-NIST choices, and
>> that is a needle that requires movement...
> 
> Watson Ladd writes:
>> I believe Paul Wouters (and please correct me if I'm wrong) wants
>> proposed text to exclude SSH doing something here that isn't using the
>> algorithms blessed by a different IETF process. I think leave this to
>> the WG is better than prejudging it.
> 
> D. J. Bernstein writes:
>> The problem I see comes from ADs imposing controversial limitations on
>> the WG scope: e.g., "ciphers that are not being considered IETF-wide"
>> won't be allowed; "limit the influx of new ciphers"; the WG has to
>> delegate "cryptographic algorithm selection" to SAAG.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ssh mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]