On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Watson Ladd <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > I'm busy rewriting tor-spec (well, mangling it) to be crypto agnostic > (read: shoving hard choices to later). In the process I am trying to > make it a bit clearer.
Hi, Watson! Some initial thoughts to observe or ignore as you see fit: It's best to do stuff like this in multiple small steps if you want it merged upstream. That way, if we like 80% of what you're doing, we can merge the 8/10 pieces we like right away and keep talking about the remaining 2/10. (For instance, stuff that improves clarity should definitely go in.) It's also a good idea to remember that the tor-spec.txt isn't just a design for a possible anonymity net: it's a writeup for how Tor actually works. So anything that changes its semantic meaning is un-mergeable unless Tor itself gets changed. The process for doing that is the proposal system documented in the tor-spec repository, proposal 001. So it's probably best to make sure you keep any semantic changes separate. > The spec seems to hold open the possibility that nodes not on the two > ends of a circuit can send recognized RELAY cells (the role of OPs in > processing > RELAY cells is also unclear). Is this the case, or is this not > supported given that there are no points at which the spec explicitly > calls for them to be sent? This is the "leaky pipe topology" as documented in the tor-design paper, which you should probably read. It is indeed intentional. cheers, -- Nick _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
