# Is it appropriate or not to post open letter to standardization organizations here on meta or the main site?

I just sent an email to NIST commenting and enquiring about NIST-SP-800-90Ar1.

The email has 3 parts: 1) option proliferation, 2) deriving seedlen for DRBGs based on hash functions, and 3) inconsistency between notes in test vector and statements in the publication.

I want to generate some discussion outside NIST and I'm considering posting my email here, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate.

Maybe I should break it up into actual questions for the main site?

However, be warned. This is a pro US/NIST site so criticisms are not welcomed. Posing incisive questions of NIST has proved unfruitful personally. This raises broader issues that are probably better addressed in less constrained forums. Whatever answers you find should be tempered with the NSA warning on page iii, NOBUS policy, the US \$B82 intelligence budget, and scope of 44 U.S.C. § 3541. Also look up Price's work on compartmentalisation and the Asch effect to understand why we answer as we do.
You could also ask NIST to correct that spelling mistake on the front page of the 90B implementation. Rolls-Royce is always correct.