[noise] rev32b (Release Candidate)

Jason A. Donenfeld Jason at zx2c4.com
Sat May 13 16:43:30 PDT 2017

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Trevor Perrin <trevp at trevp.net> wrote:
> We're not there yet, so perhaps there's also value to allowing users
> to explicitly specify a pattern?  I would at least mark this as a
> dangerous API for experts, as it seems error-prone and we've named the
> main useful patterns, so if you think you need it you might be doing
> something wrong.

This seems really quite dangerous, as you've said. I think if
libraries go this way, developers should have to explicitly set a flag
first like:

= true;

I think the pre-defined named handshake idea was a good design choice
you made early on, so that developers can pick and choose things that
are already known to be good and analyzed. It's part of the primary
appeal and flexibility of Noise -- that there's all this variety and
choice for different use cases, but not shoot-yourself-in-foot


More information about the Noise mailing list