RE: "Recommended" is a bad word :)

Rich,

You have freely and repeatedly asserted you are not a cryptographer - which
is perfectly fine. However, you have also made it clear that you will not
be satisfied unless your favorite cryptographer's feedback is included,
with no real room for discussion.

Rather than attempting to argue by proxy on a nuanced matter that, by your
own repeated admissions, you may be ill-equipped to discuss, perhaps a more
beneficent contribution would be to actually bring the suggestions and
concerns that Vijay and I have raised to people more qualified to discuss,
so that we can actually find a workable solution.

If you do not believe that compromise can be reached - perhaps because you
fail to see how nuanced this conversation is - then I don't think we can
really make any further productive progress.

We have demonstrated a clear willingness to discuss, understand, and
incorporate meaningful and useful feedback, but it appears such courtesies
have not been reciprocated. There is nothing else we can do when faced with
a "Do it my way or you're wrong" attitude.

Best regards,
Ryan
On May 16, 2014 8:38 AM, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:

> Ø  We’re stuck only if we define our job as determining whose favorite
> cryptographers are more right. We can choose not to take on that problem.
>
>
>
> Well, that is kinda neatly put and it almost made me stop.  But then I
> realized that my suggestions are based on input from members of the IETF
> CFRG, which is the group of people the WG keeps pointing to for advice.
>
>
>
>                 /r$
>
> --
>
> Principal Security Engineer
>
> Akamai Technologies, Cambridge, MA
>
> IM: rsalz@jabber.me; Twitter: RichSalz
>