Hi Damian, On 5/23/12 7:27 PM, Damian Johnson wrote: >> The bridge descriptor tarballs contain bridge network statuses, server >> descriptors, and extra-info descriptors. See: >> >> https://metrics.torproject.org/data.html#bridgedesc > > Oops, I read 'contain similar documents as the relay descriptor > archives' as being server descriptors. Maybe in this first sentence it > should explicitly say that it's a bundled batch of network status, > server descriptors, and extra-info descriptors?
I tweaked the paragraph a bit. Please feel free to edit it more and send me a patch. https://gitweb.torproject.org/metrics-web.git/commitdiff/3dbf9ae >> You'll find an example here: >> >> https://metrics.torproject.org/formats.html#bridgedesc >> >> (I'll also include an example of the suggested format below.) > > Oops again. Didn't figure that we'd use the same scrubbing description > for both. Personally I'd find it more intuitive if we had separate > sections for both, though I see why you did it this way. It's probably a matter of taste. Organizing the description by descriptor type would mean we'd repeat a few things. For example, we replace bridge identities in all three descriptor types and IP addresses in two of them (where the third type doesn't contain the bridge IP address). I think it's easier to list the changes made to all descriptor types. >> After thinking more about it, I came to the conclusion that we should >> stop sanitizing *-stats lines at all. > > In that case the 'router-signature' lines are the only ones being > scrubbed out of bridge extra-info descriptors, right? If so then we > don't need a 'router-digest' here since the digest can be calculated > from the (now unscrubbed) content - right? No, the extra-info descriptors contain hashed bridge fingerprints, not the original ones. That's why we need the "router-digest" line. Best, Karsten _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
