On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Sebastian Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Nick Mathewson wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Sebastian Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Design: >>> >>> When the consensus is generated, the directory authorities ensure that >>> a param is only included in the list of params if at least half of the >>> total number of authorities votes for that param. The value chosen is >>> the low-median of all the votes. We don't mandate that the authorities >>> have to vote on exactly the same value for it to be included because >>> some consensus parameters could be the result of active measurements >>> that individual authorities make. >> >> This is possibly bikeshed, but I would suggest that instead of >> requiring half of existing authorities to vote on a particular >> parameter, we require 3 or more to vote on it. (As a degenerate case, >> fall back to "at least half" if there are fewer than 6 authorities in >> the clique.) > > Hrm. I'm not too happy with this,
My rationale was that in practice, it's a pain in practice to try to get more than 3 or so authority operators to try out an experimental parameter in a timely basis. If the set of authority operators ever grows, getting half of the ops to tweak a parameter in a hurry will get even harder. > unless we also include a way for a > majority of authorities to prevent voting on that parameter altogether. What if we say that as a matter of design, there should always be, for each parameter, a value that's semantically equivalent to the absence of the parameter? That way a majority of authorities can "turn off" any parameter without any additional machinery during the vote. -- Nick _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
