[noise] Working toward Revision 29

Trevor Perrin trevp at trevp.net
Fri May 13 20:01:14 PDT 2016

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Rhys Weatherley
<rhys.weatherley at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have implemented the changes for SSK and removal of XR in Noise-C as per
> the new specification.  There were straight-forward enough.

Cool, though I wouldn't call these changes official till I push the
next revision to website, so let's mull this over for the weekend.

For example: I'm not sure "secondary symmetric key" / SSK is the best
possible name.

> Should the use of an SSK appear in the protocol name?

I think no.  PSK appears in the protocol name because it affects the
sequence of crypto operations.

SSK is like prologue - it doesn't affect the sequence of crypto, it
just replaces a zero-length byte sequence with actual data.  So we
don't need to name it for security.  And adding SSK isn't descriptive
enough to fully specify the secondary protocol, so it just complicates
the naming without gaining much.


More information about the Noise mailing list