[noise] New test vectors

Alex alex at centromere.net
Tue May 17 12:52:41 PDT 2016

On Tue, 17 May 2016 10:59:46 -0700
Trevor Perrin <trevp at trevp.net> wrote:

> So I guess the question is really: how do we label and talk about
> libraries?

I've created the following wiki page as a first attempt at tackling
this problem:

> > I've always considered Noise Pipes to be non-normative, which is why
> > I left "XXfallback" out of the pattern specification:
> >
> > "pattern": "NN|KN|NK|KK|NX|KX|XN|IN|XK|IK|XX|IX|XR|N|K|X",
> >
> > It's not clear to me whether the test vector format should support
> > non-normative optional extensions.  
> It makes sense to differentiate some of these advanced uses from the
> core.
> But it also makes sense to be able to test "advanced uses" with the
> test vectors format.

I agree that there is value in having test vectors for advanced use

What I like best about the current format is how well it generalizes to
all handshake patterns. In the case of SSK generality is not broken --
the "init_ssk" and "resp_ssk" keys can be safely ignored if they are not

On the other hand, Noise Pipes require a change in how the messages
array is interpreted for the special case of "XXfallback" (a
non-normative, optional, application-level feature), which why I am not
in favor of it being included in the "core" format.

Would it make sense to have a separate format for Noise Pipes?


More information about the Noise mailing list