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
Jim Gillogly (jim@acm.org)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:35:42 -0800
M-K Shen writes:
> 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?
The term "XYZ stream encryption sequence" doesn't have any negative
connotations, nor does it appear to try to confer strong results from
a proven system onto an unproven one. Looks like your namespace there
is clear, so if you like it... go for it. The "intended approximation
to an ideal OTP" may describe your motivation, but doesn't say anything
about the results you've achieved, so again in my opinion it would be
misleading to use that as a name for your system. Why not go with your
previous naming scheme (WEAK*), or pick something altogether new and
heretofore connotion-free (e.g. XYZ or Meta Bazly Stream Encryptor (MBSE))?
> 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?
While I don't guarantee that I'd have time to look at it or comment
on it further in any case, I certainly don't plan to spend much time
looking at a "pseudo-OTP". I tend to read papers that look like the
authors have a grasp of the field rather than ones where they appear
to misuse terminology willfully leading to false expectations.
As I told my son when he was wearing his hair in blond dreads, your
audience gets a negative first impression of you that you then need
to overcome before they can learn what you're really about. Wouldn't
you rather have started this conversation with a discussion about
the value of multiplexing non-random sources to try to achieve
specified levels of cryptographic strength, rather than expending
your energy trying to justify your bogus use of the term OTP? You
can't legitimately complain about this: you picked the battlefield
yourself.
-- Jim Gillogly 22 Afteryule S.R. 1999, 17:15 12.19.5.15.7, 7 Manik 20 Kankin, First Lord of Night
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:02