Re: [Cfrg] KCipher-2

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:cfrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of
> Joachim Strömbergson
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:09 AM
> To: cfrg@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [Cfrg] KCipher-2
> 
> Aloha!
> 
> On 2012-12-07 20:00 , Jon Callas wrote:
> > Yes, put the table in. It's a long-standing frustration of mine that
> > crypto documents seem to think that part of the fun is to guess about
> > implementation until you finally get it right. A sort of
> > gameification, I suppose, that makes a spec a choose-your-own
> > adventure. This gets boring, fast. The vast majority of us
> > implementors want to get it done, fast and accurate. Anything that
> > helps that is a Good Thing.
> 
> (Slight OT)
> 
> +100
> 
> At the absolute minimum add test vectors. Adding a clean, well
> documented reference implementation that uses std types (stdint.h) is
> makes it even better and if you also include internal states during
> processing of at least one test vector you make the implementers life
> _much_ easier.

For extra bonus points, include a test vector that lists the internal cipher state at various points (for example, after each round).  This makes life a lot easier on an implementer if the ever need to diagnose why their implementation doesn't work.

> 
> The siphash specification includes good test vectors and a great walk
> through that made the implementation pretty comfortable. The C reference
> code is, shall we say, terse. Also it really helps if one defines operation
> symbols before using them in the spec...
> 
> https://131002.net/siphash/
> 
> --
> Med vänlig hälsning, Yours
> 
> Joachim Strömbergson - Alltid i harmonisk svängning.
> ===================================================================
> =====
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg