Talk:AES competition: Difference between revisions
imported>Sandy Harris (→Approval?: any editors about?) |
imported>Peter Schmitt (→Approval?: comments on structure) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::OK, let me re-read and think. It may well be that we should think about this as a subarticle not so much of Block Cipher, but of Politics of Cryptography, because moving to open competition — not won by Americans — is the news as or much than the algorithms. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | ::OK, let me re-read and think. It may well be that we should think about this as a subarticle not so much of Block Cipher, but of Politics of Cryptography, because moving to open competition — not won by Americans — is the news as or much than the algorithms. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
: ''' | : '''Bump!''' This has, I think, been close to approvable for well over a year. Can we move it along? [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 02:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
:: I have a few comments on the structure of the article: | |||
:: The text on the competitors often repeats the same information given before (e.g., "did not make it into the finals") and usually coincides with the content of the separate article on this method. I think therefore that, in the context of the article, this information should be trimmed but (where possible) supplemented by comparative remarks. | |||
:: The introduction of the Catalogs subpage would fit nicely into the main article. The columns of the table might need a brief explanation (Attack? Were not all competitors analyzed?) | |||
:: --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:40, 17 September 2011
Created by moving text from block cipher. See that talk page for discussion. Sandy Harris 04:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Approval?
The article this text was moved from, block cipher, is now approved and this text is in about the same state, so I think this is close to being approvable. What do editors think?
There are a few problems.
One is that the article has one catalog, AES_competition/Catalogs/AES_players, but no "catalogs" link shows up on the main page. There's likely a simple fix for that, but I don't know how to fix it.
Another is that there are no bibliography or external links pages for this article. I don't think we need those. Block_cipher/External_Links and Block_cipher/Bibliography contain some relevant material and I see no point in duplicating it. Most links and books for specific ciphers should be attached to the articles on those ciphers. The exceptions are ones that more generally important; those should be attached to block cipher, not to this article. However, this needs other opinions before it is acted on, and even if my suggestions are accepted, I'm not sure how to implement them. Sandy Harris 07:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Bump! The above is six months old. Any comment? Sandy Harris 10:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, let me re-read and think. It may well be that we should think about this as a subarticle not so much of Block Cipher, but of Politics of Cryptography, because moving to open competition — not won by Americans — is the news as or much than the algorithms. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bump! This has, I think, been close to approvable for well over a year. Can we move it along? Sandy Harris 02:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have a few comments on the structure of the article:
- The text on the competitors often repeats the same information given before (e.g., "did not make it into the finals") and usually coincides with the content of the separate article on this method. I think therefore that, in the context of the article, this information should be trimmed but (where possible) supplemented by comparative remarks.
- The introduction of the Catalogs subpage would fit nicely into the main article. The columns of the table might need a brief explanation (Attack? Were not all competitors analyzed?)
- --Peter Schmitt 23:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)