Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:25
Adam Wagman (wagman@cognex.com)
Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:57:34 -0500 (EST)
It seems to me that Mr. Shen's questions/proposals are appropriate for
the CodherPlunks group, as they are technical in nature. I would think that,
to promote the widespread use of cryptography, relative novices should be
welcome, not just seasoned professionals.
If someone's question or proposal seems to indicate a lack of familiarity
with the relevant literature, then I think there are two reasonable
courses of action:
1) Ignore the person's posts (and kill/filter the thread or the poster, if
you like)
2) Post a brief response with at least one pointer to the relevant literature (Of course, a more detailed response pointing out particular deficiencies
in a person's proposal would be nice, if someone wishes to take the
time). e.g. "Your scheme seems to be deficient compared to known
schemes in ways X, Y, and Z. This topic is well-covered in the
literature; I suggest you look at the overview aricle A, book B,
or website W."
Mr. Rescorla's recent responses seem to be constructive in this way, e.g.
"Your method is inferior to other secret key schemes, for instance IEEE 802.10
or ANSI X9.42 (DH, but DH-key expansion is the same problem as
session key generation from a master key)" and "Good places to start would be
ANSI X9.42, SKIP, or PEM."
If, after receiving such a helpful response, the person refuses to read the
manual, flaming (or ostracism) is then appropriate.
I agree that this list shouldn't be used for detailed elementary instruction,
but surely the cause of cryptography is better served by our being
novice-friendly.
Adam Wagman
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:25