On: Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

[saurik]

FWIW, I am pretty sure I agree with you/OTR, but the IETF Messaging Layer Security (MLS) people disagree for not-always-trivially-dismissible reasons (indirect link because I am lazy).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25101825

[tptacek → saurik]

(a) I wasn't aware of this.

(b) Thanks for the link!

(c) The IETF is such a shitshow for cryptography.

[josephg → tptacek]

The IETF is an open organisation. Specs are written & ratified by the people who show up. And often that means folks from large companies.

If you don’t like that status quo, get involved. They would love to have you @tptacek.

[cwyers → josephg]

The problem isn't any one individual who is/isn't involved, it's the consensus mechanism. If you bring in a great sous chef and ask them to make you an omelet, they will make a great omelet. If you bring in a committee of people -- some sell omelet pans, some run hotel chains where free omelets are part of the package, some want you to adopt their vegan egg substitute -- you are not going to get a great omelet spec. Adding one omelet expert to the committee doesn't add anything over just asking an omelet expert to make some eggs.

[tptacek → josephg]

They would absolutely not love to have me, and I keep away from their mailing lists as much as a favor to them as to my own sanity. I'm not alone in the wilderness on this opinion that IETF process produces abysmal cryptography, by the way; Bernstein beat me here by 2 decades.