Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:02
Mok-Kong Shen (mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:12:31 +0100
David R. Conrad wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>
> > Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > > I agree with Jim. You are, at the very least, making yourself look foolish.
> >
> > I expect from a scientific discussion something more than such
> > categorical statements without supporting arguments.
> They've already told you why they feel that way. The term "Pseudo-OTP" is
> confusing, misleading, inextricably tied to snake oil, and is a neologism
> where a perfectly acceptable term, Stream Cipher, already exists.
>
> Maybe you don't agree with that. But they have certainly made their case
> clear. And, for whatever it's worth, I agree with them. If I was to
> start designing stream ciphers, which is something I'm not qualified to
> do, I would call them stream ciphers.
In a response to a post of this list, I suggested an alternative
term 'XYZ stream encryption sequence'. In sci.crypt, where one person
vehemently objected to my terminology, I suggested an alternative
term 'intended approximation to an ideal OTP'. In both cases I
haven't yet obtained feedback. What's your opinion to these?
Or do you have a better suggestion?
BTW, what interests me personally more is the question: Would the use
of an alternative term lead to substantial motivations of the readers
to contribute discussions on the topic? I guess that this issue is
probably at least as essential as the aforementioned.
M. K. Shen
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:02