Some comments on BIP text

[pool2win]

Thanks for all the nice work you are putting into this.

Here are some comments I have after reading through the spec. Some
might seem as nits, but I am erring on the side of sharing more than
less.

I have not read through the code, so some questions might be answered
there. However, I hope these comments are helpful.

1. Lack of robustness will be a problem for online services that need
   to make progress in the face of benign or byzantine failures of
   some of the nodes. Services face production issues and online
   services will want to continue making progress. The lack of
   robustness is understandable from a custody wallet perspective, and
   chilldkg suits those use cases really well.

2. a BIP340 Schnorr signature pop on message i with secret key
   a_i[0] to the coordinator.

   Here message i was confusing. I had to stare at it for a while to
   figure out that you mean a message with only the identifier i as
   the content. Just a nit, but might help to restate it.

3. The encryption relies on ephemeral-static ECDH key exchange...

   Is this Noise_KX? If so, might help to highlight it as a footnote
   to make it easier to digest. If it isn't, then I misunderstood this
   and maybe we can add how this is different from Noise_KX.

4. EncPedPop appends to the transcript eq_input of SimplPedPop

   I imagine you mean the entire log of messages received and sent -
   excluding the private messages? Or with cipher text of the secret
   messages sent?

   It is not clear from the BIP text what is the transcript that
   CertEq reaches agreement on.

5. I like the simplicity of CertEq. It seems like it can finish in a
   single round. Is that so?