-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Align draft with POC for multiproof changes #305
Conversation
f413443
to
865ec0a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great start! I still need to double check that the reference code was copied properly (will do so in my next pass). In the meantime, the text needs a little work:
- I think we need a gentler introduction to the idea of multiple proofs. In the overview section, I think we should start by describing things in terms of a single proof, then have a paragraph where we describe the multi-proof feature and, just as importantly, why we need it
- Terms like "proofs share" and "verifiers share" make sense as variable names in code, but they don't read very well in English. My advice would be to read through the Prio3.
- We're going to need a section in Security Considerations about how changing
PROOFS
impacts security, in particular when we go for a smaller field for a given circuit. Feel free to leave as a TODO for now, but we should at least stub it out so we remember to get to it later.
3a5a21c
to
6572a2b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking good, almost there.
draft-irtf-cfrg-vdaf.md
Outdated
@@ -4561,6 +4621,10 @@ We also stress that even if the Idpf is not extractable, Poplar1 guarantees | |||
that every client can contribute to at most one prefix among the ones being | |||
evaluated by the helpers. | |||
|
|||
## Considerations for multiple proofs (`PROOFS`) {#security-multiproof} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Add a newline between the title and the first paragraph
## Considerations for multiple proofs (`PROOFS`) {#security-multiproof} | |
## Considerations for multiple proofs (`PROOFS`) {#security-multiproof} | |
draft-irtf-cfrg-vdaf.md
Outdated
@@ -4561,6 +4621,10 @@ We also stress that even if the Idpf is not extractable, Poplar1 guarantees | |||
that every client can contribute to at most one prefix among the ones being | |||
evaluated by the helpers. | |||
|
|||
## Considerations for multiple proofs (`PROOFS`) {#security-multiproof} | |||
> TODO on how changing `PROOFS` ({{multiproofs}}) impacts security, in particular when we go |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- "TODO"s should be imperative, similarly to how we write commit messages. (E.g., TODO Add guidance for ..."
- Add a reference to the open issue.
- Break lines at 80 characters.
7ece83c
to
f1e0533
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you! Please squash and I'll merge.
d8fc8fe
to
974e24c
Compare
Update draft per multiproof POC
Prio3.PROOFS