[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: cfrg
Subject: Re: [CFRG] [EXT] Re: Adoption Call: Guidelines for Writing Cryptography Specifications
From: Thom Wiggers <thom () thomwiggers ! nl>
Date: 2023-06-21 6:19:43
Message-ID: CABzBS7kGy=v9k0fJSq+JKawpBpASUQAjvcKMtAJ_fxgcVPk48g () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Hi Uri,
Op di 20 jun 2023 om 18:45 schreef Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <
uri@ll.mit.edu>:
> >> 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
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Uri,<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">Op di 20 jun 2023 om 18:45 schreef Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL \
<<a href="mailto:uri@ll.mit.edu">uri@ll.mit.edu</a>>:<br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">>> For example, when describing group \
operations using multiplicative notation,<br> >> the multiplication symbol * \
should be used instead of the x symbol.<br> ><br>
> Say, some field uses another notation; e.g. [k]P for scalar multiplication<br>
> in elliptic curves.<br>
<br>
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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <br>
> Should authors stick with what is familiar in the context of their \
specification,<br> > or should they try to be consistent with the recommendations \
in this draft?<br> <br>
I see no harm in following recommendations of this draft - though it's not a \
normative reference, aka - it shouldn't be \
enforced.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><div><p></p> \
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><ol><li>Never use a metaphor, simile, or other \
figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.</li><li>Never use a long word \
where a short one will do.</li><li>If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it \
out.</li><li>Never use the passive where you can use the active.</li><li>Never use a \
foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday \
English equivalent.</li><li>Break any of these rules sooner than say anything \
outright barbarous.</li></ol></blockquote></div><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Thom<br></div><div> \
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px \
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <br>
TNX<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________
CFRG mailing list
CFRG@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic