Is the hashing formulation inconsistent?

[iherman]

§3.2.4 says, in bullet entry (3):

Let hashData be the result of joining proofConfigHash (the first hash) with transformedDocumentHash (the second hash).

However, proofConfigHash is defined in bullet item (2), and transformedDocumentHash is defined in bullet item (1). Ie, the item should either be:

Let hashData be the result of joining transformedDocumentHash (the first hash) with proofConfigHash (the second hash).

or

Let hashData be the result of joining proofConfigHash (the second hash) with transformedDocumentHash (the first hash).

Either way is fine, although the first possibility would make all current implementation invalid 😒.

Of course, a third solution would be to exchange bullet items (1) and (2).

(I did not check whether the same error occurs elsewhere in the same document as well as in other cryptosuites.)

[dlongley]

The meaning of "first" and "second", I believe, had to do with indicating the order that the concatenation or "joining" happens, not the order in which the hashes might have been created. I believe Ted? may have wanted those parentheticals to clarify the concatenation order? I can't recall now.

So if we need it to say "the first hash when concatenating" (or something like that), we can do that.

[iherman]

The meaning of "first" and "second", I believe, had to do with indicating the order that the concatenation or "joining" happens, not the order in which the hashes might have been created.

Which is fine with me, but it would be better to then order the bullet lists the same way to avoid any kind of misunderstandings (this is my third option in the issue)

I believe Ted? may have wanted those parentheticals to clarify the concatenation order? I can't recall now.

So if we need it to say "the first hash when concatenating" (or something like that), we can do that.

[iherman]

Note that §3.2.4 has a slightly different formulation which seems to be clear and without ambiguities (and, indeed, reflecting the order of the final hashing). For the sake of consistency, I think we should use the same formulation in this section as well.