Subject: [Crypto-panel] Request for review of draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve

From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 09:51:18 +0300

Dear Jean-Philippe,

As we discussed yesterday with Alexey and Nick, we would like to ask you
about reviewing the current version of draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve/). Could
you consider the possibility of providing such a review?

Of course, we will be happy to receive reviews from all Crypto Review Panel
members.

Regards,
Stanislav (on behalf of the CFRG chairs)

---

From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:27:13 +0100

Hi!

sure, but conflict-of-interest warning: I'm a co-designer of BLAKE3 (
https://blake3.io), a function that can be seen as a competitor of K12 in
the super-fast, parallel hash category. I can do the review as objectively
as I can but could understand that the CoI might be a concern for some
(including the draft authors).

wdyt?

Cheers,

JP

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 7:50 AM Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Of course, we will be happy to receive reviews from all Crypto Review
> Panel members.
>
> Regards,

---

From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 10:51:26 +0300

Dear Jean-Philippe,

Many thanks for your reply, your readiness to do a review and for the
warning!
Regardimg BLAKE3 – unlike the PAKE selection process, the Crypto Review
Panel reviews for the draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve draft can be
considered as independent opinions of the experts, that can help to
highlight possible problems with the document (and can be disputed later by
the authors).

In my personal opinion (with my CFRG chair hat off), if you
mention conflict-of-interest warning in your review, that will be enough.

Regards,
Stanislav

---

From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:59:09 +0100

Sounds good :)

I'm familiar with CFRG's goal but as it's my first review, wanna make sure
that we agree on the goals: do these include.. ?

1. technical correctness of the document
2. editorial quality
3. value of the content against alternative solutions
4. relevance of the topic wrt CFRG's goals

Thanks!

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 8:50 AM Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> https://blake3.io), a function that can be seen as a competitor of K12
>> in the super-fast, parallel hash category. I can do the review as
>> objectively as I can but could understand that the CoI might be a concern
>> for some (including the draft authors).
>>
>> wdyt?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> JP
>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve/).
>>> Could you consider the possibility of providing such a review?
>>>

---

From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:03:52 +0300

Yes, but since the document has already been adopted as a RG item, I think
that "relevance of the topic wrt CFRG's goals" is not necessary.
Nevertheless, all comments are always welcome - in any case, additional
discussions during/after Research Group Last Call can be even more
productive if many important points are highlighted by the review(s).

Regards,
Stanislav

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:59, Jean-Philippe Aumasson <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 7:50 AM Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <
>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Jean-Philippe,
>>>>
>>>> As we discussed yesterday with Alexey and Nick, we would like to ask
>>>> you about reviewing the current version of draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve (

---

From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:32:24 +0300

Dear Crypto Review Panel members,

Any other volunteers to review the draft?..

Regards,
Stanislav

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 11:03, Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> I'm familiar with CFRG's goal but as it's my first review, wanna make
>> sure that we agree on the goals: do these include.. ?
>>