I dont blame the parent for paranoia. NIST has been involved in standardizing protocol/algorithms with backdoors. It is not a controversary, it is documented. Although they pulled off the standard when it became public news [1].
"You're breaking the rules" is just as generic, tropey, and unsubstantive as any other low-effort comment, and continuing arguments to defend your derision is far more disruptive to the tone and flow of discussion. If you had just quietly downvoted, there would be little/no comment thread down here.
P.S. Yes, I understand that I'm doing exactly the same thing, but I felt this should be said.
No, have at it, at the very bottom of the thread, hanging off a flagkilled comment is exactly where all this belongs and that is where we are, a safe little basement of meta. That's also what makes the irritating rule-complaints qualitatively different from gratuitously crap toplevel comments. Neither are good but one is way more not good than the other.
just quietly
To embrace an internet trope, Sir, this is a messageboard.
Well, parent has actually expressed my reaction. The article seems to be a puff site, with no details about what they mean by "Zero Trust". I didn't follow any of the links (I don't think I should have to).
If NIST has something to tell me, then they need to tell it me straight, not cloaked in partner sites and snazzy graphics.
You can write a comment about things you don't like in the thing posted but not a reflexive trope response that can appear unchanged in anything with 'NIST' in it, which is what the guideline is about.
I can understand not trusting NIST's approach to crypto standards, given their history with the NSA. However what in this set of documents do you find untrustworthy?
