6
$\begingroup$
  1. There are two attack tags in plural ( and ). Those should probably be renamed?

  2. The tags and are very overlapping, I think. Do they require distinct tags or should they be merged? (Perhaps with some tags sprinkled in.)

  3. seems so specific that I suggested it as a synonym of the more general . Feel free to agree or disagree here.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Nice findings – thanks for keeping an eye on the tags! Took care of 1 and 3. Didn’t have time to dive into 2 though… $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Jul 5 '16 at 14:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ IMHO for 2 I would merge them. :/ $\endgroup$ – Biv Jul 7 '16 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ From a conceptual viewpoint, a distinguisher is a tool used within a distinguisher attack, so it makes some sense to keep them both. However the distinguisher is only ever relevant if you consider such attacks, so I'm for merging distinguisher into distinguish-attack $\endgroup$ – SEJPM Jul 7 '16 at 18:45
2
$\begingroup$

Since 1. and 3. are already taken care of by @e-sushi, that only leaves 2., i.e.the tags /. Having taken a look at the tag wikis and questions, I think the latter should be made a synonym of the former. I cannot suggest this as I lack the relevant reputation.

The tag wiki should probably be mostly taken from , since it seems more developed. (Excerpt might need to be rewritten.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 Done – guess it’s time for a “self-accept”. ;) $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Jul 13 '16 at 11:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .