Re: [CFRG] [EXT] Re: Adoption Call: Guidelines for Writing Cryptography Specifications

[Thom Wiggers <[e-mail]>]

Hi Uri,

Op di 20 jun 2023 om 18:45 schreef Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <
[e-mail]>:

> >> For example, when describing group operations using multiplicative
> notation,
> >> the multiplication symbol * should be used instead of the x symbol.
> >
> > Say, some field uses another notation; e.g. [k]P for scalar
> multiplication
> > in elliptic curves.
>
> Respectfully disagree. While some respected publications do use [k]P
> notation, other respected publications and textbooks do use k*P for scalar
> multiplication in EC.
>

Of course, this was just the first example that came to mind; surely there
are better examples. And of course, many in mathematics leave out
multiplication symbols altogether.

>
> > Should authors stick with what is familiar in the context of their
> specification,
> > or should they try to be consistent with the recommendations in this
> draft?
>
> I see no harm in following recommendations of this draft - though it's not
> a normative reference, aka - it shouldn't be enforced.
>

I guess that my main point is that this draft might want to, albeit phrased
softer and differently, say something similar to rule 6 in Orwell's rules
for writing (which have significant overlap with the draft, now that I see
them side-by-side); thus avoiding (less-experienced) authors/editors
enforcing it by themselves.


>    1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you
>    are used to seeing in print.
>    2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
>    3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
>    4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
>    5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if
>    you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
>    6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright
>    barbarous.
>
> But again, this suggestion is really one of the few things I could think
of that might be useful to consider; the draft is well-rounded.

Cheers,

Thom


>
> TNX
>