Paweł Morawiecki writes:
> I think we should strive for openness and a free flow of ideas. 

Right. That's why the advantages and disadvantages of various
submissions are analyzed extensively in public documents, most
importantly scientific papers. "The submitter/submitters understand that
if they disagree with published analyses then they are expected to
promptly and publicly respond to those analyses, not to wait for
subsequent committee decisions."

The unfortunate reality is that the cryptographic community doesn't have
the resources to thoroughly analyze _all_ candidates, so some focus is
required. The committee has the tough job of trying to select the most
promising algorithms, when the whole reason that a selection is
necessary is that there isn't enough information available to be
confident about what the best algorithms are! "The submitter/submitters
understand that the selection of some algorithms is not a negative
comment regarding other algorithms, and that an excellent algorithm
might fail to be selected simply because not enough analysis was
available at the time of the committee decision."

> After the second round, designers received (after several weeks)
> feedback from the committee members on their algorithms.

No. _Some_ individual committee members asked me to pass _some_ comments
along to _some_ designers, and so I did, with an explicit caveat that
individual comments often do not reflect the committee view. "The
submitter/submitters understand that the committee will not comment on
the algorithms, except that for each selected algorithm the committee
will simply cite the previously published analyses that led to the
selection of the algorithm."


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Cryptographic competitions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to