Re: Cohen's paper on byte order
From: Brian Gladman (fake@nowhere.org)
Date: 04/21/03
- Next message: Ramu Ponugupati: "Re: Any site of analysis of crypto algorithms?"
- Previous message: Brian Gladman: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Brian Gladman" <fake@nowhere.org> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:16:04 +0100
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote in message
news:3EA3A169.5010706@null.net...
> Brian Gladman wrote:
> > I do not consider you to be a liar. But I no
> > longer consider your position on this issue to
> > have any credibility.
>
> What have I said that is unreasonable?
I had resolved not to continue this debate but this is a sensible question
and one I will endeavour to answer. What follows is my view of the
situation but I will omit 'in my view...' for the sake of brevity.
There are two sets of arguments for errors in the FIPS, one of which I
accept and one of which I don't.
I accept that there is an 'in principle' error in the FIPS in that the byte
array interface is not _formally_ recognised within it.
But I do not accept that the FIPS has caused, or will cause, any errors in
practice because all sensible and experienced engineers don't have any
difficulty in working out which version NIST intended to specify.
In consequence, while you were pursuing this as an issue of principle I
could support you. But once it became clear that you were pressing this as
an issue of practical concern it was no longer one that I could support.
> I get the impression that your complaint with me is
> that I have identified a problem in a part of the
> specification that you appear to have contributed to.
No complaint at all. But I lost the battle that _you_ are now fighting when
it really mattered (viewed as a bit reversal issue rather than the lack of
a byte array interface).
In consequence my view is that it is not reasonable for anyone to claim that
this is a _big_ issue now since, if it was the big issue that they claim,
they _would_ have been there when it mattered during the draft stage. And
any 'problem' that is present in a document that is openly available to the
world's software engineering community for well over a year without anyone
complaining about it cannot be a serious issue in practical terms.
As an aside, since I knew this was an issue very early on, a reasonable
question for me is "why did I not alert others to this problem at the point
I knew it existed?". The answer to this question is a long one
unfortunately but I will relate it if there is anyone who is still
interested in this thread (doubtful I imagine).
I am sorry that you feel aggrieved by the position I have taken since this
is not my intent. But I really do feel that you are making more of this
issue than is reasonable given the full circumstances involved.
Brian Gladman
- Next message: Ramu Ponugupati: "Re: Any site of analysis of crypto algorithms?"
- Previous message: Brian Gladman: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
