Tuesday, May 23rd works for me (also the day before and after that). For the P1619 part: there were many proposed changes to the draft, concerns raised, which generated no real response in the reflector. What kind of discussions do you expect? In the teleconference we will hear arguments for the first time, which we may or may not fully comprehend or respond to them properly. By now it is quite clear, some of the WG members want the proposal as it is, and others do not want a standard with LRW-AES the only algorithm in it, but there is no communication between the two parties. If months pass, without any meaningful messages in the reflector, and many concerns left unanswered, a teleconference may not be the most productive way to proceed.
We at Seagate are not sure about the usefulness of a new PAR. There was no real discussion about my discussion document, so I did not even bother posting updates. In the mean time I wrote 4 newer versions (based on my own reflections and comments I received from outside of the P1619 WG), which I did not post to the reflector, seeing no interest. The latest version lists 5 possible modes of encryption. Laszlo Hars Seagate Research > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: Next P1619/1619.1 Meeting > From: "Matt Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, May 02, 2006 11:11 am > To: "james hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Fabio Maino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gideon Avida" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > How about Tuesday, May 23rd? We could set up a morning meeting for P1619, > have an hour break for lunch, then start an afternoon meeting for P1619.1. > Example: > > 8:00 am to 11:00 am (PDT): P1619 > noon to 3:00 pm (PDT): P1619.1 > > For east coast, the corresponding times would be 11-2 and 3-6, EDT. > > Does that work for everyone? Does Monday work better for anyone? Let's try > to get this setup by this Friday if possible. Jim, do you want to set up a > call-in through Sun, or should I set one up through Quantum? > > > Possible agenda: > > P1619: > - Discuss sending LRW mode to NIST. > - Review changes to P1619 by IEEE editors (if it's available by then) > - Discuss ballot committee for P1619 > - Discuss any proposals from Seagate and possibly submit a new PAR > > P1619.1: > - Review P1619.1-D6 and talk about any comments or concerns. > > > Anything else? > > Could we get an updated proposal from Seagate that addresses the previous > comments? It would also be good to have a proposal for a new PAR so that we > can review the wording. Ideally, we would want this information by March 9th > so that we have two weeks to chew on it. > > -Matt > > Matt Ball > Embedded Software Engineer > Quantum Corporation > 4001 Discovery Drive, Suite 1100 > Boulder, CO 80303 > (720) 406-5766 > > > -----Original Message----- > Frm: james hughes > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 8:45 AM > To: Matt Ball > Subject: Re: Next P1619/1619.1 Meeting > > .... > > The document is in for editorial review. We will be putting together > a ballot committee. > > > Is there anything else to talk about with P1619 besides submitting > > LRW to NIST? > > Submitting it to NIST and talking about the Seagate proposal > (Submitting a PAR for that mode). > > > I'll try to have P1619.1-D6 ready by this weekend, but if we > > _really_ needed it, I might be able to finish it by Wednesday night > > for a Thursday meeting. > > I would suggest Monday or Tuesday May 22 or 23.
