This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 21 August 2024 by reviewer Kvng (talk · contribs). Cryptography: Computer science This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

The definition is very convoluted. The idea is simple, "Domain separation is an efficient means to construct different function instances from a single underlying function"^[1] (italics is mine). My proposal is to use something similar and refer to this book as a source. Dimawik (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A message to the reviewer: my proposal is to put the article into the main spaces as Domain separation (cryptography) (over the redirect) to avoid future moves. See my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25#Domain separation (cryptography) for details. Dimawik (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! While I don't have much to add, I think you may be able to link keying material (which doesn't have a page yet) to "Key (cryptography)" by doing [[Key (cryptography)|keying material]], as it contains some information on that. Very interesting topic you've written about. Dalmationrotary (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit: I do not see much OR in this draft as-is. The text can certainly be improved (for example, it is not written in encyclopedic style in some places), but currently the draft contains sourced statements interspersed with common-sense explanations that are not sourced - but can be without too much effort. It would be very helpful if you would add {{cn}} in the places that make you uneasy, so the cites can be added there. Thank you in advance! Dimawik (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Feels that there are some original research. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 09:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article still has a leftover {{more footnotes}} tag. IMHO the problem is by now resolved (all nontrivial paragraphs have footnotes), so I propose to remove this tag. Dimawik (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Two weeks, no objection, removed. --Dimawik (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]