Thanks for the reply. It is an interesting question, because the truth is that I don't know. At one point, very long ago, (VLG) I knew nothing about computers at all but would by "Byte" magazine (I told you VLG) and read it. It was complete gibberish. Then after some time (six months?) I could suddenly understand.
I actually did learn quite a bit from your article. The use of tech terms like HDKF & AEAD was helpful rather than a hindrance. For example the phrase "stapling HKDF onto your protocol" is surprisingly helpful. I looked up HKDF, and the use of "stapling" gives me a concept of how it is used. So good.
Going back over it, I believe the real problem is that your previous post, "Lucid Multi-Key Deputies Require Commitment" is required to reading (or knowledge) for this post. Once I read that much of this was easier. You hid that reference is in the "why should you believe me" and yet to my reading the this article builds on that one. You define the terms and provide a context that is missing.
So concrete suggestions (easy to come up with after the fact!):
- ask yourself if this is a continuation of a thought, topic, etc and give refs if so.
- in addition to "why you should believe" maybe add a section "for i²" readers :-)
Cool things are ones where you never see the world the same. Just to reiterate, I don't see the world of cryptography the same after reading your article, despite the quibbles, so thanks.
I actually did learn quite a bit from your article. The use of tech terms like HDKF & AEAD was helpful rather than a hindrance. For example the phrase "stapling HKDF onto your protocol" is surprisingly helpful. I looked up HKDF, and the use of "stapling" gives me a concept of how it is used. So good.
Going back over it, I believe the real problem is that your previous post, "Lucid Multi-Key Deputies Require Commitment" is required to reading (or knowledge) for this post. Once I read that much of this was easier. You hid that reference is in the "why should you believe me" and yet to my reading the this article builds on that one. You define the terms and provide a context that is missing.
So concrete suggestions (easy to come up with after the fact!):
- ask yourself if this is a continuation of a thought, topic, etc and give refs if so. - in addition to "why you should believe" maybe add a section "for i²" readers :-)
Cool things are ones where you never see the world the same. Just to reiterate, I don't see the world of cryptography the same after reading your article, despite the quibbles, so thanks.