The microblog: 2021.09.09 18:08:46

2021.09.09 18:08:46 (1435998624513597469) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "azet (@a_z_e_t)" (1435992787103715328):

"CAESAR selection decisions will be made on the basis of _published_ analyses. If submitters disagree with published analyses then they are expected to promptly and _publicly_ respond to those analyses." First posted "Timeline (tentative)" was _5 years_ to give time for analysis.

2021.09.09 18:23:36 (1436002356588474374) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

There were hundreds of public messages discussing procedures: e.g., various submitters asking for more time, and followup discussions. I sent more than 500 admin messages overall. But the real content of the competition was the _public analysis of submissions_. That takes time.


2021.09.09 17:19:51 (1435986315066019844) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "azet (@a_z_e_t)" (1435968676868464645):

From "The submitter/submitters understand that the committee will not comment on the algorithms". Whatever misinformation you heard from some sore losers, maybe consider (1) engaging in basic fact-checking and (2) not hijacking unrelated threads? Thanks!

2021.09.09 17:26:28 (1435987978766241802) from "azet (@a_z_e_t)":

It's not misinformation. I know that's what it says on the website. I also know that some explanations were given to rejectees. No one I remember was a sore loser, I talked to winning teams, 2nd+3rd round candidates etc., sorry if you don't value feedback to an interesting paper.

2021.09.09 17:34:17 (1435989947631030273) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "azet (@a_z_e_t)" (1435987978766241802):

The rules were clear from the outset. All committee communications were clearly labeled and strictly followed the rules. The claims you're making are factually incorrect no matter how often you repeat them. I also see no sign that you've read the applicable portion of the paper.

2021.09.09 17:45:34 (1435992787103715328) from "azet (@a_z_e_t)":

ok to clarify, I'm not talking about a breach of protocol or people in the committee being influenced. the main issue I saw was people wondering what's going on with the competition, long waiting periods, only few announcements. might not have been the best strategy in hindsight.