-
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
Editorial pass #521
Editorial pass #521
Conversation
An affine gadget would be a waste of a gadget check.
We already use "one-hot vector" elsewhere in this document to mean a vector with exactly one nonzero element, so we shouldn't overload this term.
The aggregate result may be influenced by attacker-controlled clients, but only insofar as honestly-generated reports could influence the aggregate result.
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.
Excellent. I think the only thing I slightly disagree with is MAY versus SHOULD for the the none-affineness of the gadget, given the semantics of SHOULD in RFCs. But I agree that it would be silly for this to be non-affine.
Yeah, looking at RFC 2119, maybe this ought to be a lower-case "should". There's no valid reason for an affine gadget, but also an affine gadget wouldn't break anything. |
This rolls up a bunch of editorial changes, clarifications, and rephrasings from my pass over the document. I split it out into several topical commits, plus a couple omnibus commits of more minor changes.