Talk:Ring learning with errors key exchange

Based on the comments posted, I have added a lead section which is hopefully suitable for general audiences. I have also added more commentary in other parts of the article to clarify things for less mathematically inclined readers. The links throughout the article are important because the provide more background for readers who are less familiar with some of the concepts. Jinbolin (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jinbolin. The new Lead looks very good. Carvalho1988 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, Thank you for your comment. If you look at the Ring Learning with Errors Key Exchange now you will see that Jinbolin has added an excellent lead section that should provide more of what you are looking for. I have added some more references and added a section on other approaches to solving the same problem that the article presents. Thanks. Carvalho1988 (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the improvements made by Jinbolin and his colleagues are ready to be reviewed. I have gone through the article again to check the mathematics against the references and things match. Just waiting on further review. Carvalho1988 (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The current look and tone of this article is not up to our standards. The paragraph in the lead about cryptography needs to be removed, and the lead sentence should be restructured to something that goes like "In cryptography, ((name of the subject of the article)) is a ..." -- "in cryptography" gives the context, and what follows should be a very quick summary of what the subject of the article is. I used "((name of the subject of the article))" because I'm not completely sure if the current article title, "Ring learning with errors key exchange", is the best title for this article. Could it be something more concise? Be aware that the article should be encyclopedic and not look like a textbook chapter. Textbook material should go on WikiBooks. — Jeraphine (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I do kind of agree, the lead doesn't actually mention "Ring learning with errors key exchange", and the background seems to be a general introduction about security and key exchanges. Saying that, the AfC acceptance criteria is basically "if someone put this up for deletion, would it survive?" and I'm about 99% sure that the answer is yes, which is why I accepted it.
 * I'd recommend maybe asking at WikiProject Cryptography for ideas/help, since it's a specialist area, so most people wouldn't be able to help rewriting that much. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I read the reviewers comments and tried to rewrite the lead in the manner that the reviewer suggests. It is shorter and gets to the point of the article more quickly. Hopefully this will meet standards. I also checked the links in the lead to ensure they provided the necessary background for readers not as familiar with public key cryptography or lattices. Alonzocrypt (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rewrite, it's better now. — Jeraphine (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick question about time reference.
Are Cryptology ePrint Archive references numbered according to time? Dannyniu (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)