On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Karsten Loesing <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/17/13 10:31 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote: >> 212 Increase Acceptable Consensus Age >> >> This proposal suggests that we increase the maximum age of a >> consensus that clients are willing to use when they can't >> find a new one, in order to make the network robust for >> longer against a failure to reach consensus. In my >> opinion, we should do that. If I recall correctly, there >> was some tor-dev discussion on this one that should get >> incorporated into a final, implementable version. (11/2013) > > Hi Nick, > > I agree with the idea that clients should accept an old consensus up to > 3 days instead of 1. It's stressful enough to nag directory authority > operators to look after their machines if they fail to produce a > consensus for a few hours. I did that a couple of times, and it > stressed me out every single time. I don't want to imagine how bad such > a situation would be during the holidays or CCC. > > You mention a tor-dev discussion above that should get incorporated. Do > you have a link? A quick search in my inbox didn't help.
I'm afraid I can't find it either. "Some time in 2012" would be my guess. I think I was thinking of the discussion on #7986 . > Here's some feedback from reading the proposal: > > - Section 6.1 of dir-spec.txt says that "Circuits SHOULD NOT be built > until the client has [...] a live consensus network status", but that > means 3 hours after valid-after, AFAIK. Should we rather specify here > that clients MAY use a consensus for up to 3 days after its valid-after > time if they don't find a more recent one? Or is this something to > leave to the implementation and leave open in dir-spec.txt? I think it should go into dir-spec.txt once this proposal is done. Alternatively, we could increase the valid-until interval and have the valid-until time be 3 days after valid-after. That seems like a cleaner solution to me. I wonder why we didn't spec it like that. Perhaps a more careful reading of the proposal or of #7986 will tell me why... > - If the new 3 days constant should become part of dir-spec.txt, what > about the suggested time after which old router descriptors may safely > be removed from caches? (Would you accept patches to dir-spec.txt that > specify related time constants that are currently only written to the code?) Sure. > - Do we really plan to raise the 3 days to something higher when the > "proposals related to ticket #7126 [...] are complete and implemented"? > If so, would it make sense to make the 3 days constant a new consensus > parameter, rather than hard-code it? Possibly. peace, -- Nick _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
