Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:03
Mok-Kong Shen (mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:59:12 +0100
Jim Gillogly wrote:
>
>
> 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))?
I just respond to Metzger in a related matter. Now let me do what
I have not done because I waited the copy of Sandy Harris' post
channeled through CodherPlunks. I think it could be accepted by
all if I choose the term 'a new stream cipher'. Maybe the word
'new' could be problematic. But this is Harris's suggestion.
I plan to post something related to the 'content' of the original
post tomorrow and at that connection go into this point.
>
> > 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.
Good point. Unfortunately it happened that your present post arrived
late and I was not speedy enough in my leaning process (mentioned
in my respose to Metzger). I hope that this finally clears up
the matter.
M. K. Shen
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:03