[noise] Potential redesign?

[Stephen Touset]

I’m a little conflicted on the other hand. I like the idea from a technical perspective, but this also increases complexity. We can specify up-front one or more protocols built from these primitives that are recommended for people to use, but that (perhaps unfairly) reminds me of SAML-fueled nightmares. One thing that appealed to me very strongly about the original Noise protocol was the fundamental simplicity. Having a bunch of primitives that can be composed into a few solid protocols is great, but I worry it means we have a bunch of primitives that can also be composed into countless terrible protocols.

> On Mar 16, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Jonathan Rudenberg <jonathan at titanous.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 16, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Trevor Perrin <trevp at trevp.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm considering a redesign of Noise, with the goal of making it a
>> framework that can express a wider range of DH-based protocols.
> 
> I like it. The idea of a library that has the high-ish level flexible Noise primitives implemented and can be composed into protocols is really neat.
> 
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> Noise mailing list
> Noise at moderncrypto.org
> https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/noise

-- 
Stephen Touset
stephen at squareup.com