On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Karsten Loesing <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/17/13 10:31 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote: >> 147 Eliminate the need for v2 directories in generating v3 directories >> >> This proposal explains a way that we can phase out the >> vestigial use of v2 directory documents in keeping authorities >> well-informed enough to generating the v3 consensus. It's >> still correct; somebody should implement it before the v2 >> directory code rots any further. (5/2011) > > This proposal looks plausible to me. Some minor remarks: > > - The proposal suggests that authorities send an opinion document to the > other authorities "at the regular vote upload URL". URLs are cheap, why > not use a different URL to keep things separated, e.g., /tor/post/opinion ?
sure. > - Should dir-spec.txt suggest a timing for pushing-and-pulling opinion > documents? Authorities could send their opinions at :45:00 and fetch > missing opinions at :47:30. This could be defined by a new > OpinionSeconds part contained in "voting-delay" lines. This would be a > SHOULD requirement, not a MUST requirement. This is plausible. > - The proposal doesn't say what lines must be contained in opinion > documents. It seems that an authority that parses an opinion document > is only interested in a) relay fingerprint, b) descriptor publication > time, and c) descriptor digest; unless there's more information that > helps authorities decide whether "they might accept" a descriptor. If > not, opinion documents only need to contain a small subset of headers > and all the "r" lines that would be contained in a later vote. This also seems okay. It would however mean that we can't use the same parsing logic as we use for regular votes. > - The proposal doesn't explicitly say this, so just to be sure: when an > authority finds that it's missing a router descriptor that it then > downloads, it also downloads the corresponding extra-info descriptor > afterwards, right? I suppose it should. > - Another thing that is left implicit in the proposal: the opinion > document will always contain the valid-after time of the *next* > consensus. Well, the URL /tor/status-vote/next/opinion implies that, > but maybe we should explicitly mention this in dir-spec.txt. Hm. maybe valid-after and valid-until should just get ignored on opinions. Or omitted. Also, ISTR that Roger told me that this whole proposal didn't actually seem to be necessary in practice. I wish I could remember the rationale, though. yrs, -- Nick _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
