We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.1-1.3.1 while for AEGIS-256, => while for AEGIS-256X
while for AEGIS-256,
while for AEGIS-256X
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.1-1.5.1 This is a 128-bit mask, made of => This is a 128-bit mask made of
This is a 128-bit mask, made of
This is a 128-bit mask made of
I think highest index is more confusing than in the paper.
highest index
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.2-2 Could be reworded to something like this: The Encrypt function of AEGIS-128X and AEGIS-256X resembles that of AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256, respectively, but processes R-bit input blocks per update.
The Encrypt function of AEGIS-128X and AEGIS-256X resembles that of AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256, respectively, but processes R-bit input blocks per update.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.3-2 Could be reworded to something like this: The Decrypt function of AEGIS-128X and AEGIS-256X resembles that of AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256, respectively, but processes R-bit input blocks per update.
The Decrypt function of AEGIS-128X and AEGIS-256X resembles that of AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256, respectively, but processes R-bit input blocks per update.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.3-4 Add in erase expected_tag, as discussed for AEGIS-128L/-256.
erase expected_tag
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.2-2 Update function, but absorbs => Update function but absorbs
Update function, but absorbs
Update function but absorbs
M0 and M1 are 128 * D bits => M0 and M1 are both 128 * D bits?
M0 and M1 are 128 * D bits
M0 and M1 are both 128 * D bits
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.3-2 Absorb function, but => Absorb function but
Absorb function, but
Absorb function but
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.4-2 Enc function, but => Enc function but
Enc function, but
Enc function but
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.5-2 Dec function, but => Dec function but
Dec function, but
Dec function but
All of these functions are missing the Inputs:/Outputs: present in the non-parallel sections.
Inputs:
Outputs:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.6-2 DecPartial function, but => DecPartial function but
DecPartial function, but
DecPartial function but
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.7-4 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.7-4 Space before else: doesn't match the non-parallel sections, although I think you did this for extra readability.
else:
Could reposition the # 256 bits.
# 256 bits
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.1-4 Could remove the blank lines before Update() as this is done in other places, but this is clearly for readability.
Update()
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.2-2 Update function, but => Update function but
Update function, but
Update function but
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.3-2 Absorb function, but => Absorb function but
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.4-2 Enc function, but => Enc function but
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.5-2 Dec function, but => Dec function but
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.6-2 DecPartial function, but => DecPartial function but
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.6-1 Could do to AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256 => to AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256, respectively
to AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256
to AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256, respectively
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.7-3 register sizes => register size?
register sizes
register size
Agrees with my , but comma removals.
, but
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5-3 instances respectively, with => instances, respectively, with or reword
instances respectively, with
instances, respectively, with
The other detections are false positives.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Address suggestions from Samuel's final proofreading (#84)
55f92c3
Fixes #33 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #81 #82 #83 #85 #86
No branches or pull requests
Manual Review
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.1-1.3.1
while for AEGIS-256,=>while for AEGIS-256Xhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.1-1.5.1
This is a 128-bit mask, made of=>This is a 128-bit mask made ofI think
highest indexis more confusing than in the paper.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.2-2
Could be reworded to something like this:
The Encrypt function of AEGIS-128X and AEGIS-256X resembles that of AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256, respectively, but processes R-bit input blocks per update.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.3-2
Could be reworded to something like this:
The Decrypt function of AEGIS-128X and AEGIS-256X resembles that of AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256, respectively, but processes R-bit input blocks per update.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.3-4
Add in
erase expected_tag, as discussed for AEGIS-128L/-256.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.2-2
Update function, but absorbs=>Update function but absorbsM0 and M1 are 128 * D bits=>M0 and M1 are both 128 * D bits?https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.3-2
Absorb function, but=>Absorb function buthttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.4-2
Enc function, but=>Enc function buthttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.5-2
Dec function, but=>Dec function butAll of these functions are missing the
Inputs:/Outputs:present in the non-parallel sections.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.6-2
DecPartial function, but=>DecPartial function buthttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.4.7-4
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.7-4
Space before
else:doesn't match the non-parallel sections, although I think you did this for extra readability.Could reposition the
# 256 bits.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.1-4
Could remove the blank lines before
Update()as this is done in other places, but this is clearly for readability.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.2-2
Update function, but=>Update function buthttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.3-2
Absorb function, but=>Absorb function buthttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.4-2
Enc function, but=>Enc function buthttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.5-2
Dec function, but=>Dec function buthttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.5.6-2
DecPartial function, but=>DecPartial function buthttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.6-1
Could do
to AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256=>to AEGIS-128L and AEGIS-256, respectivelyhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5.7-3
register sizes=>register size?Grammarly
Agrees with my
, butcomma removals.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead#section-5-3
instances respectively, with=>instances, respectively, withor rewordThe other detections are false positives.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: