The CFRG does not reply well to requests for review.
"some other standing committee" roughly translates to this WG.
I'm not proposing a better solution, just saying that those don't
seem to be what we want.
But not just this group, the IPSEC group also spends a lot of its time
on algorithms.
It seems sub-optimal to have several groups doing the same work. It is
even worse when the group has otherwise completed its work.
The SHA-1 issues are rather different from the normal run of algorithm
requests. I would think that they were exactly the type of thing that
CFRG should be working on.
I agree that CFRG should not be handling vanity crypto requests, but I
don't think that S/MIME should either. I think that the proceedure for
vanity crypto should be that the proposer writes a draft, proposes a set
of identifiers and IANA checks that the identifier assignments are in
line with policy. The result is then issued as an RFC.
It would of course be even better if the IETRF had some designation
other than RFC for items that are clearly statements and not a request
for comments. I would like an UCA series (unchecked crypto algorithm).
Phill