cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-vdaf

Consider removing definition of DAFs

Closed this issue · 1 comments

cjpatton commented

DAFs are the same as VDAFs except they don't provide robustness on their own. This feature was requested early on in the history of PPM (ietf-wg-ppm/draft-ietf-ppm-dap#45). However no DAF has been defined, much less deployed.

We should consider removing DAFs from the draft:

  1. This would reduce some maintenance cost in the draft and reference implementation.
  2. This would simplify #259, which conflicts with the current goal of writing down DAF as a "warm-up" to VDAFs.
cjpatton commented

We got a little feedback on this from the list: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/CIqmoCeaTKtxDo-qDyb5i2WwF1o/

A couple of people spoke up and suggested it's fine to keep the syntax without instantiating it. Let's hold this open a little longer.