[noise] Protocol Names
trevp at trevp.net
Fri Jun 16 13:14:30 PDT 2017
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Jake McGinty <me at jake.su> wrote:
> Based off of the input from this conversation, I wrote up a draft PR for
> more explicit (but backwards-compatible) definitions for how a protocol name
> is constructed and parsed.
> Does this reflect the general consensus so far?
Thanks, I think that captures what we've discussed so far:
Thinking about the future, a couple more ideas:
* Maybe allow "/" in addition to alphanumerics in primitive names?
Thinking of cases like:
SHA3/256 or SHA3/512 (versus SHA3256, SHA3512)
* I could also imagine parenthesized primitive names to allow arguments, e.g.:
But I guess we could consider that later?
More information about the Noise