2016.08.20 20:43:50 (767069649804615680) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Stefano Tessaro (@StefanoMTessaro)" (765793850506014720):
Generic answer: try to establish consensus on the applied-cryptographers-at-crypto@googlegroups.com mailing list. @StefanoMTessaro @kennyog
2016.08.16 01:26:37 (765328875660324864) from "kennyog (@kennyog)":
Apparently breaking over-stretched NTRU is not applied crypto? https://twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/765275460355842048
2016.08.16 02:12:42 (765340471736410112) from "Stefano Tessaro (@StefanoMTessaro)", replying to "kennyog (@kennyog)" (765328875660324864):
well, our paper is seemingly among the few that didn't make it from Track A
2016.08.17 07:52:03 (765788260962603009) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Stefano Tessaro (@StefanoMTessaro)" (765340471736410112):
Pure proof talks have never been acceptable content for AppliedCrypto. Were you proposing any new cryptosystems? @StefanoMTessaro @kennyog
2016.08.17 08:14:16 (765793850506014720) from "Stefano Tessaro (@StefanoMTessaro)":
No :) But if proofs/techniques help set concrete (and smaller) parameters, doesn't this make them applied?