Re: [TLS] [Cfrg] Citing specs in specs

Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> Tue, 04 March 2014 05:33 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@marvell.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1209A1A036C; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:33:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k6RlryHj7wcn; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.156.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97AA1A0366; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0045851.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s245Wu0d011203; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:32:57 -0800
Received: from sc-owa.marvell.com ([199.233.58.135]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1jcrfcv5m0-27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 03 Mar 2014 21:32:57 -0800
Received: from SC-vEXCH2.marvell.com ([10.93.76.134]) by SC-OWA.marvell.com ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:32:52 -0800
From: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
To: Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:32:52 -0800
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Citing specs in specs
Thread-Index: Ac83ay/UcpeQCEuqTpurMCDpBspGng==
Message-ID: <CF3B846F.3415E%paul@marvell.com>
References: <530FDC7A.4060404@cisco.com> <CABqy+srTqCXjOR4DMNgWyxf2pZ7dwZfWyznhBuJaY5w8VeuR4Q@mail.gmail.com> <5310B12E.4070603@cisco.com> <CABqy+srrbtdHOckjPqTj5SFuQwQEqXBjgc8kwagMi8E6ZRf=qg@mail.gmail.com> <28A7736F-A791-4552-8D42-DB99AC7B7F9B@vpnc.org> <CF37EA5F.338D8%paul@marvell.com> <CACsn0cmewBrOzaRF5XXC1p1A_gUSwkdE1_7V-1x8nta-ESyA+A@mail.gmail.com> <CF38F2D4.33940%paul@marvell.com> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C711EF97AD05@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D018B8516C6E@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com> <7A2637AF-5A16-404B-B7A1-49FB17D5345A@callas.org>
In-Reply-To: <7A2637AF-5A16-404B-B7A1-49FB17D5345A@callas.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.87, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-03-04_02:2014-03-03, 2014-03-04, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1305240000 definitions=main-1403030212
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/SGupovuGD_BCYsESeMcJUjg-gv4
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 23:18:37 -0800
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Cfrg] Citing specs in specs
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:33:08 -0000

On 3/3/14, 2:52 PM, "Jon Callas" <jon@callas.org> wrote:

>On Mar 2, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> wrote:
>
>> Implementations are possible by using the readily available open source
>> implementation.  This is a good thing, but it is also desirable
>> to have a unambiguous description of the algorithms that is not
>> a C code file.  This is why we write RFCs...
>
>It's hard to disagree with this, in a similar way that it's hard to
>disagree with the idea of peace on earth, living at one with nature, etc.
>
>But in practice, code needs to be in a computer language rather than
>English and I've seen (and been involved with) a document that started
>with rough consensus and running code, translated that into English, and
>the English was (and is) devilishly hard to compile back into C.
Yes - I¹e seen the same problem.  English is not a concise or clear way to
document an algorithm.

HAC is pretty clear and is a decent example of cryptographic algorithm
descriptions (http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/about/chap8.pdf), but still
uses a mix of math notation and english text.
>
>Portably implemented algorithms are hard to do in any computer language.
>They're harder to do in words. I don't see how you're going to get an
>unambiguous description of the language in anything but a computer
>language. It doesn't have to be C, it could be Python, Ruby, or Algol-58
>(which I mention because it was originally designed as an algorithmic
>description language). English is a suboptimal implementation language.

Yes, exactly!   'Readable code¹ would be a very good way to provide an
algorithm description.  Why bother with pseudo code when a executable
syntax could be used.   I submitted earlier on this list some Python code
fragments as examples of this approach.  Python allows operator
overloading, so it can provide some very readable ECC algorithm
descriptions.

Paul




>
>	Jon
>