[noise] rev34 status

[Justin Cormack]

On 18 June 2018 at 17:05, Trevor Perrin <trevp at trevp.net> wrote:
>  * ss removed; this is debatable, but I interpreted it as part of the
> authentication, and our intention is to defer the authentication.
> Also, one use case for the deferred patterns is to prepare for
> sign/kem modifiers which can transform se and es, but not ss.  Also,
> we can later add a modifier like "ss1" or something that adds ss to
> patterns (and this would be useful even with some other non-deferred
> patterns).

Would it be simpler if ss was in the patterns but just got removed if there
were future sign/kem modifiers? There are some other reasons for using
the deferred patterns without these. Or remove all of them, but have a
single ss modifier that adds them (there is normally only one place where
it makes sense, as early as possible)?

Justin