Why Anna? Because Alice sounds too much like it's about crypto! Greetings from the secushare workshop. We're discussing the implications of the protocol design bug regarding that Alice (Anna) or Betty logic by which if the channel breaks and Betty wants to re-open it, then she can't actually do anything because Anna is supposed to start the handshake whereas Anna thinks the channel is still up and running and thus doesn't do anything.
We're thinking of introducing an extra message from Betty to Anna which tells Anna that Betty would like to be entertained and transmits Betty's new channel id. Anna will the either realize she has an old channel id, thus needs to take action, or she has *no* channel id, then she probably started negotiation at the same time and should act no further (racing condition) or she already has that channel id, then also she does nothing. Does that sound reasonable? Where do we have documentation explaining why we have this decision-making logic in the first place rather than letting the initiating of the two start the handshake? I don't think Tor has anything like that, also TCP and TLS don't have it. Back in the days of PSYC1 I designed it in such a way that if both nodes decide to talk to each other at the same time, they will interpret each others' initations as the respective responses, resulting in faster link creation.
