#25544: Complete vanguard specification -------------------------------------------------+------------------------- Reporter: asn | Owner: (none) Type: defect | Status: | needs_review Priority: Medium | Milestone: Tor: | 0.3.4.x-final Component: Core Tor/Tor | Version: Severity: Normal | Resolution: Keywords: tor-guard, torspec, guard- | Actual Points: discovery, 034-roadmap-master, | 034-triage-20180328, 034-included-20180328 | Parent ID: | Points: Reviewer: asn | Sponsor: | SponsorV -------------------------------------------------+------------------------- Changes (by asn):
* status: needs_revision => needs_review Comment: Replying to [comment:9 mikeperry]: > Replying to [comment:8 asn]: > > Mike, your changes look good to me. > > > > I pushed another commit on my github repo at `mesh-vanguards` with some more text on how the python script is used right now. If you think that's inappropriate for the proposal let me now. > > Seems good. > > > I think now is the time to decide what's the role of prop#247 and what's the role of `xxx-mesh-vanguards.txt`. I think it's confusing to let both of them live at the same time because they are pretty similar in terms of text. We should figure this out so that we get this merged in torspec. > > > > Should we let prop#247 be "Vanguard integration inside Tor core", whereas this new proposal is "Mesh vanguard design using external script"? And make both of them proper proposals (aka get a proposal number for this new one too). Or what should be the plan? > > I think that the final Tor implementation should match the vanguards repo behavior (and what this new proposal says), not 247. Because what proposal 247 proposed is different enough than what we're doing in the vanguards repo (and what is specified in this proposal) that we should mark 247 as superseded by this one. It felt weird tossing aside the old 247 material entirely. > > I don't have a strong preference for this, but it seems natural to me. Argument against might be that we've been saying prop#247 everywhere, but I think as long as 247 as marked as superseded and mentions the new proposal, this is OK. Sounds good. Take a look at my branch `mesh-vanguards-squashed` in my repo. It's rebased to latest master, I squashed all the vanguard-mesh commits together, and I superseded prop#247. The only thing that needs to happen before merging is replace all the `xxx-mesh-vanguards.txt` parts with the actual number we give to the new proposal. Check it out and let's merge ready it if you like it. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/25544#comment:10> Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/> The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________ tor-bugs mailing list tor-bugs@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs