Talk:Block cipher/Draft

APPROVED Version 1.0

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

I don't see that Howard actually saw these edits or endorsed them. Peter did, though. Howard, are you okay with this those changes? D. Matt Innis 22:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Howard had approved a version through a couple of days ago, and that's the one I was *going* to OK, not a more recent one that had about a single space added to it. Then I saw today that the latest version had been updated by the editors so that it was the most recent one. So that's the one I approved. How am I supposed to figure out that, apparently, Peter approved the later one but not Howard. Where's Joe the Approvals Manager? Why, for once, can't people just give me a nice clean version to approve!!!??? Hayford Peirce 22:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I did it correctly ... Wasn't I supposed to join in, or isn't it o.k. to update to a more recent version? Peter Schmitt 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Peter, you did fine - exactly as you were supposed to do. In fact, with your endorsement, it's still a single editor approval, it's just that Howard's name is on it, too. However, the last version he apparently saw was on November 24 (17 edits earlier). Therefore, he either needed to show he approved those edits by making a statement to that effect here on the talk page. If he doesn't approve, the approval can still stand because you approved this version. So, really it's just a matter of whether Howard wants his name on this same version. All he has to do is let us know. D. Matt Innis 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can still go with the approved version. As the fates have it, I have a one-word correction that should have been applied earlier -- not an outright error but a clarification. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good news. All's well that ends well. Let's leave this approved version as is and you guys can work out your new one word correction on the draft and call us back if you need it to go into the Approved version. D. Matt Innis 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's last time I will ever approve or reapprove an article that Joe the Manager hasn't specifically told me to. Hayford Peirce 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, this one is no big deal. Just be most careful with the controversial ones :D D. Matt Innis 00:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a big deal -- it means that it's taken two Cops to do what one should have been able to do. If I can't do it correctly the first time, then I won't do it again. And I can't do it correctly if Joe the Manager doesn't tell me *explicitly* precisely which version to approve. As I said above, and I mean it seriously, if I don't get a go-ahead from Joe in the future on an approval or re-approval, I simply won't do them. Hayford Peirce 03:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Howard, what's your one-word change? We can make it on the draft? Also, is it time to archive most of the talk page? Sandy Harris

Add to "In theory, any block cipher can be broken by a brute force attack"...so the statement doesn't conflict with one-time pads. Yes, it's time to archive. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I made it "In theory, any cipher except a one-time pad can be broken by a brute force attack", since stream ciphers are also vulnerable.

Also did the archiving. Sandy Harris 03:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-approve?

The current approved version is from 2009. I have made a number of changes since then. I'd say it needs re-approval, and is ready for that.

Approval Process: Call for review

Call for review: Sandy Harris 03:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Call for Approval:

Approval Notice:

Certification of Approval:

---

Please discuss the article below, Block cipher/Approval is for brief official referee's only!