Laszlo, What chapter do you have in mind ?
There were some disjoint statements in the mailing list, but I do not remember anything about a whole chapter. Lets remember that the goal of the standard is to teach/describe HOW to do certain things, not WHY. In this context, the goal is similar to a patent application - concentrate on explaining what you are trying to patent, not on why you are trying to do this. There is no way we can convey all of the details needed for securing a system in a single standard. In particular, fully describing attack scenarios and proposed defenses against them is way out of context - for those that have been involved in CC certification, just recall the number of pages needed to describe something like this... -serge -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 1:02 PM To: SISWG Subject: RE: Procedure for 1619 (disk) Since a whole chapter is still missing (my comments have not been incorporated: Addendum to Introduction, Dec 12, 2005 5:35 pm, to go to this new Backgrounds chapter), like the handling of odd sized sectors, and there are significant requests for changes, I think we don't have a version we could consider to discuss, let alone to vote on. We should modify our timetable: - We need a draft version with all the changes in, and two weeks for comments. - Then we need a meeting to discuss conflicting change requests, new additions. - Then we need a revised draft, and two weeks for comments. - Finally, we could submit the final write-up for voting. Laszlo > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Procedure for 1619 (disk) > From: "Shai Halevi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, January 16, 2006 6:40 am > To: "SISWG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The minutes from the Dec-12 meeting say: > > > By December 25th Serge will update the doc with Laszlo's comments as > > instructed today during the meeting. Comments to this document shall be > > posted before January 15th to the reflector. The group will discuss the > > comments and decide to either reject or accept the comment. No more > > comments will be accepted after January 15th, and by January 25th Serge > > will prepare a final version of the doc to be voted by Jan. 30th the > > group over email (one vote per company, at least half of the active > > members should vote). > > Now that the Jan-15 deadline is over, let's try to focus on the concrete > comments that were made, so that Serge can prepare the "final version" > for a vote. > > The comments that were entered (as far as I can tell) are the following: > > * Changes to the underlying algorithm: there were a few posts suggesting > switching from LRW to something else. Specifically, in a message from > Dec-21 Matt Ball suggested some LRW-variant > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1619/email/msg00558.html > and Mart Somermaa in message from Jan-6 suggested yet some other modes > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1619/email/msg00610.html > > > * Extending LRW with "ciphertext stealing", see pictorial description in > a message from Laszlo on Dec-13 > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1619/email/msg00483.html > > > * There were many requests for adding rationale. Matt Ball is helping > Serge on that front. > > > * There were a few posts about specific wordings in the document, including > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1619/email/msg00582.html > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1619/email/msg00631.html > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1619/email/msg00632.html > and maybe also others that I missed (?) > > -- Shai
