Subject: [Cfrg] Preference for focus on EC rather than PAKE

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 19:23:39 -0700

Greetings. This RG has historically done a poor job of working on multiple disparate items at the same time. For some of us, the need for the RG to come up with concise, understandable response to the request from the TLS WG (which will also affect many other WGs) is about an order of magnitude higher than the need to evaluate PAKEs. The latter can wait until the higher-importance item is finished.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Paterson, Kenny" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:50:03 +0000

Dear Paul,

Sorry for the delay in picking this up. Alexei and I met a few days ago
and discussed the workload of the research group (and we'll continue to
meet regularly, as we're both located in the same neck of the woods in
London). 

We believe we (the co-chairs and the wider membership) will have enough
cycles to do both things at the same time, though we do agree that the ECC
work should have the higher priority.

Regards,

Kenny

On 10/10/2014 03:23, "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Greetings. This RG has historically done a poor job of working on
>multiple disparate items at the same time. For some of us, the need for
>the RG to come up with concise, understandable response to the request
>from the TLS WG (which will also affect many other WGs) is about an order
>of magnitude higher than the need to evaluate PAKEs. The latter can wait
>until the higher-importance item is finished.
>
>--Paul Hoffman
>_______________________________________________
>Cfrg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg