[noise] Reworking PSK usage

[Alex]

On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:52:59 +0000
Trevor Perrin <trevp at trevp.net> wrote:

> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Alex <alex at centromere.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 May 2017 21:17:07 +0000
> > Trevor Perrin <trevp at trevp.net> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Alex <alex at centromere.net> wrote:  
> >> > (C) Where does the "psk" designation belong? For example, which
> >> > one of these is correct?:
> >> >
> >> > * Noise_NNhfs+psk0
> >> > * Noise_NNpsk0+hfs  
> >>
> >> Hm, I guess this becomes immediately relevant with "fallback" and
> >> "psk?".  Maybe if the order of application doesn't matter, make it
> >> alphabetical?  So, XXfallback+psk0?
> >>  
> >
> > The order of application does matter, at least when it comes to
> > transformations.  
> 
> This all seems complicated, because the psk0 location is interacting
> with fallback and hfs.
> 
> Maybe there's a better way to handle "psk0"?  One option is that psk0
> would NOT insert a token, and just would process the PSK before the
> patterns, similar to current behavior.  That means it's a special
> case, but also means there's less interactions like above to worry
> about.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

How would that generalize for pskN?

-- 
Alex