Subject: Re: [Cfrg] RE: Where's the beef?

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:31:16 -0400

In message <3.0.3.32.20020830130541.01915860@mail>, Alex Alten writes:
>David,
>
>At 12:39 PM 8/30/2002 -0700, David A. Mcgrew wrote:
>>>
>>> You side-stepped my budget question.  So I assume no money is available.
>>
>
>No.  I disagree.  Anything serious must go through very thorough "private"
>review first.  You cannot put stuff out publicly until you are sure it 
>will fly from a crypto/security point of view.  Otherwise you will damage
>our reputation to the point that you might as well disband.
>
>To me "private" means we have the best cryptanalysts possible review our
>RFCs before we put them out for public review (say a couple of months 
>before first call).  Unless the various RG members have the credentials
>(only 2-3 are probably needed per type of RFC) AND are willing to sign
>the review, you *will* have to pay for this type of review, and it is not
>cheap (although the best are not the most expensive).  In any case it is
>good professional form to have neutral 3rd parties review them, our RG
>members will probably develop biases while working on or discussing a
>technology/RFC.

Alex, if I recall correctly you've made this proposal before -- and 
were told that (a) the IETF doesn't work that way (b) the IETF doesn't 
want to work that way, (c) we think that we do a good job nevertheless, 
and (d) the openness of our process makes it easier to attract the 
attention of many different experts -- which has, in fact, happened in 
the past.  

Putting on my Security AD hat, I can say quite unequivocally that I 
have no budget for "expert reviews" of any sort.  Nor do I feel the 
need for one.

As for "private review" before first call -- no one thinks that 
anyone's random, first thoughts should be published as an RFC, or even
as an I-D.  Most I-Ds, even -00s, are the product of a fair amount of 
thought and work before they're even submitted for the first time.  And 
we have a lot of review after that, by bodies we call "working groups".

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

---

From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:21:55 -0600

Judging from the number of familiar IETF faces as authors at Crypto, I see
little substantiation for the claim that there's no such thing as a
free crypto expert.  However, I'm not interested in subscribing to yet
another IETF grudgefest mailing list, and I hope this one either gets
onto technical topics or moves itself off into the IPTF (Internet Political
Task Forces, far away from here).

Hilarie

---

From: Alex Alten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:44:01 -0700

>we have a lot of review after that, by bodies we call "working groups".

Well Steve, if I have I sure don't remember doing so.  This is my first
time stating this type of position.  Maybe you've mixed me up with someone
else?

Anyway thanks for the plain speaking.  I was speaking from my own experience
developing custom cryptographic algorithms.  I am no cryptanalyst, and I have
come to deeply respect the analysis of people I do not ever see participating
in our efforts here.  My concern was that we would not get the best advice
if we could not pay for it.  You have stated otherwise.  So be it.

But we have been sidetracked by this issue--I should not have pursued it
with David M.

What I really want to understand is what is this RG's practical role?
(Jim H's somewhat pessimistic viewpoint seems to cut close to the bone.)

Of particular interest to me is can it design custom cryptography to meet
the particular needs of a WG?

Thanks,

- Alex

--

Alex Alten
[email-masked]

---

From: Alex Alten <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:20:23 -0700

>attention of many different experts -- which has, in fact, happened in 

Steve,

I just checked my email archives.  You are right.  I did propose 
something similar to what I just stated here in regards to using
outside cryptanalysts, back in August 2001.  And you were the one
who shot me down on it.  I'd forgotten it.  I have a lot of respect
for the ISSI folks (mostly ex-NSA cryptanalysts).  They are the gold
standard.  I wish a few of them would help us out, but that's 
obviously not going happen.

- Alex

--

Alex Alten
[email-masked]