@villevoutilainen, @iburyl, PTAL?

This looks so non-editorial to me that it isn't even funny. :D

@villevoutilainen: Hm :-) Do you think this changes the normative content? Which part specifically?

@tkoeppe I don't want to figure out whether it does change the normative content, and if so, how. I want LWG to do that.

Got it, thanks!

My problem with this change is that X is now being used

1. without indices,
2. with upper indices,
3. with lower indices and
4. with upper and lower indices.

Also not sure why q is being used with parenthesis for V and X and without for key.
While rounds are defined a tiny bit clearer, but it adds quite a bit of complexity to X definition.
Given the wording was not really broken before the changes, I am not sure that it is worth it.

Right. The change is a spec revamp. While I have the utmost confidence that @tkoeppe can do it correctly, this sort of changes are in principle something that the spec review group, in this case, LWG, needs to ack.

To be clear:

• $X$ and $X^{(q)}$ are two distinct objects.
• Both are sequences:
  • $X = (X_i)_{i=0}^{n-1}$
  • $X^{(q)} = (X_{i}^{(q)})_{i=0}^{n-1}$
  • If you will, $(X^{(q)})_{q=1}^r$ is a sequence of sequences.
• For any sequence $S$, the name of the sequence names the entire sequence, and subscripting it names an individual element, so $S_i$ is a specific element, and $S$ is shorthand for $(S_i)_{i=a}^b$. This is already something we're doing in the approved paper without further explanation, e.g. when referring to the elements $V_i$ of the sequence $V$.

The upper index in parentheses numbers the rounds, and writing it in parentheses is a not too uncommon style to make it easier to distinguish this kind of "family index" from, say, an exponent. It's ultimately just another sequence index, but into a different kind of sequence (namely the sequence of rounds).

Given the wording was not really broken before the changes, I am not sure that it is worth it.

What I find unclear in the approved wording is what the result of Philox is. It says $X'$, but what is that?

One could argue further that the term "$r$-round substitution-permutation network" isn't defined :-)

My point re paranthesis was, if we start using that for X and V, they should also be used for the key. Now usage is inconsistent.

My point re paranthesis was, if we start using that for X and V, they should also be used for the key. Now usage is inconsistent.

OK, sure, we can either drop the parentheses, or also write $\mathit{key}^{(q)}_k$ if you like, that's fine!

One could argue further that the term "$r$-round substitution-permutation network" isn't defined :-)

I can agree with that, but it is more a light reference to the original paper rather than something really used in the definition. This sentence can be removed without changing the algorithm definition.

Currently it is defined as:

A single round of the generation algorithm performs the following steps:
...
The output sequence X’ of the previous round (X in case of the first round)
...
After r applications of the single-round function, Philox returns the sequence Y = X’.

"single round of the generation algorithm" and "single-round function" could probably be called more consistently though.

Yes, indeed, what is a "round", and why is there a "first round", etc. etc. I think "$r$-round network" is a good evocative name after the fact, but the name alone doesn't mean anything. In maths you should generally say what something is, and then you can give it a name for later reference. But names don't make meaning.

We can also use a totally different symbol instead of $X^{(q)}$, e.g. $W^{(q)}$, if you prefer.

Oh, by the way, note that the drafting directives forbid multiletter variable names, so we'll probably have to do something about $\mathit{key}$ at some point :-)

Given the wording was not really broken before the changes, I am not sure that it is worth it.

I would definitely call into question what the result of Philox is in the approved wording. The paper says "returns the sequence $Y = X'$", but $X'$ is defined as "the output sequence of the previous round". Again, "previous" seems a bit disconnected in this context, and in any case one could read this as "previous means that there's something else coming after, so the final round is just discarded". But surely that's not what we mean here?

Looking into compiled preview it does seem rather readable and several versions of X are not too confusing.
If we rename key to K^{(n)}, saying it is a modifikation of K sequence for the given round (which it is), that would probably be also rather consistent with how we deal with X sequence.

Good idea, done!

Bullet list:

• K^{(q)}_k is the k^{th} ... <- singular
• K_k are the elements ... <- plural
• M_k is multipliers[k], and ... <- singular

Since everything around became singular...

• K_k is the k^{th} element of the key sequence K

Other than that looks ok for me. But as @villevoutilainen said, there should be some bless from LWG on that change.

• K_k is the k^{th} element of the key sequence K

Yes, good call, done. I might even apply this change separately already, since ISO will require the renaming anyway.

Other than that looks ok for me. But as @villevoutilainen said, there should be some bless from LWG on that change.

Yes, indeed, but I wanted to get some sense of agreement first and flesh out the details -- thanks!

I'll update this now that all your fixes have gone in.

I've updated the PR after all the LWG issues have gone in:

@Dani-Hub, @jwakely I think it would be prudent to handle this as an LWG issue. What do you think? If so, how would you like me to present the proposed changes? Would you by any chance be able to derive them from this pull request?

It sounds reasonable to me to open an LWG issue.

I agree

Thanks, will do! @Dani-Hub, how would you like me to describe the proposed wording in the email? Would a link to this PR suffice, or shoudl I transcribe it?

Thanks, will do! @Dani-Hub, how would you like me to describe the proposed wording in the email? Would a link to this PR suffice, or shoudl I transcribe it?

A link would suffice, maybe you could add some introductory words

Of course, yes, I was just asking about the wording! (The intro will be shamelessly copied from the this PR, of course, but I'll handle that.)

Of course, yes, I was just asking about the wording! (The intro will be shamelessly copied from the this PR, of course, but I'll handle that.)

Oh yes, a link is sufficient

Sorry, I lost the round index on the $V$s in the rebase. Here's the fixed version:

Sorry, I lost the round index on the $V$s in the rebase. Here's the fixed version:

@tkoeppe I have now updated the P/R following your most recent suggestion, please double-check again:
LWG 4212

@Dani-Hub Looks good, thank you!