[noise] Protocol Names
alex at centromere.net
Tue May 30 23:52:41 PDT 2017
On Wed, 31 May 2017 05:13:19 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason at zx2c4.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Alex <alex at centromere.net> wrote:
> > How we deal with the test vector file format is still an unresolved
> > challenge though. One solution would be to openly declare that the
> > format is incapable of representing certain valid but uncommon
> > patterns, such as those with multiple PSK tokens, possibly contained
> > within the same message sequence. This would lead to a far simpler
> > format at the cost of functionality. Do you think the trade-off is
> > worth it?
> I think it'd be entirely reasonable to define test vectors based on
> the handshake name alone, as Trevor suggested earlier. Since this
> parsing logic will already be part of most libraries, this will be
> straight-forward to implement. It also makes test vectors unambiguous.
Ok, so you think the trade-off is worth it.
More information about the Noise