On 19/06/12 04:15 AM, Jack Lloyd wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:20:35AM -0700, Jon Callas wrote:
Un-reviewed crypto is a bane.
Bad crypto with a rubber stamp review is perhaps worse because someone
might believe the stamp means something.
Are you assuming there is such a thing as a perfect review? I don't
think so, myself. There are just reviews, some better for some purposes
than others. We don't have anything like a complete methodology to do
this sort of thing. And as Jon mentioned, all reviews are bound by
resources, so compromise is a given.
Another way to think about it is to consider the review as a fact that
adds information. Each new review adds some information which combines
into some sort of timeline in history. It doesn't necessarily tell us
better, but it certainly sets up a reputational trap (as someone
mentioned). Which might be worth something.
iang
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
