On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:56 AM teor wrote:
Thanks for the followup, Teor! I have only one comment on the changes:
> I made these useful features "may not" in:
> https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/103/commits/2662c688170696fbed2ba7e4dfa7f33ccf702435
We should avoid "may not" in
Hi again,
Apologies, a quick follow-up:
There is another RFC (older), that is in use by Debian apparently:
RFC3041. https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3041.txt
From:
https://manpages.debian.org/buster/iproute2/ip-address.8.en.html
see `mngtmpaddr`
RFC4941 is newer and with some improvements,
Hi teor,
Thanks for this epic work, some lecture for me to deeply go over this
weekend.
By briefly reviewing I've noticed something important is missing that
should be a part of this proposal.
I am not sure under which section it should go under. I guess `3.2.2.
Use the Advertised ORPort IPv4
Hi,
Here is an initial draft of Proposal 312: Automatic Relay IPv6 Addresses.
This proposal includes:
* relay auto IPv6 addresses, and
* relay auto IPv6 ORPorts.
This is the second of 3 proposals:
* Proposal 311: Relay IPv6 Reachability
* Proposal 312: Automatic Relay IPv6 Addresses
*
Hi Nick,
Thanks for your proposal review.
I've made most of the changes you've suggested, you can see the latest
version of the proposal here:
https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/103/files
I'll send another full text to the list when all the reviews are done.
I've also responded to your
On 1/16/20 5:01 PM, proc...@riseup.net wrote:
>
> Hi. We are rolling out the vanguard plugin for our users and wanted to
> understand some options we can enable.
>
> * In many parts of the Security README setting *circ_max_megabytes* is
> recommended. Though it is discouraged for usecases
