On 1/15/14 1:08 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote: > On 1/6/14 7:55 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote: >> 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. > > Okay, starting a patch with proposal 147 tweaks and changing this URL as > suggested. > >>> - 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. > > Added to the proposal. > >>> - 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. > > True. Added as two comments to the proposal. > >>> - 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. > > Added. > >>> - 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. > > Added as comments. > >> 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. > > I talked to Roger on IRC, and here's why this proposal may indeed be > overkill: > > As of January 2013, there is only a single version 3 directory authority > left that serves version 2 statuses: dizum. moria1 and tor26 have been > rejecting version 2 requests for a long time, and it's mostly an > oversight that dizum still serves them. The other six authorities have > never generated version 2 statuses for others to be used as pre-voting > opinions. So, it's basically not true that version 2 statuses are > required for the version 3 protocol to work properly. > > Here's a possible way to move this forward. > > - Please review and merge my prop147tweaks branch that contains tweaks > from our discussion above, regardless of whether this proposal will be > implemented or not. > > - I'm going to run a quick analysis of archived vote documents to see > how much authorities would have benefited from the others' votes before > generating their own votes.
>From January 1 to 7, 2014, only 0.4 relays on average were not included in a consensus because they were listed in less than 5 votes. These 0.4 relays could probably have been included with pre-voting opinions. (Here's how I found out: extract the votes-2014-01.tar.bz2 tarball, run `grep -R "^r " 0[1-7] | cut -c 4-22,112- | cut -d" " -f1,3 | sort | uniq -c | sort | grep " [1-4] " | wc -l`, result is 63, divide by 7*24 published consensuses, obtain 0.375 as end result.) > - I'm going to ask Alex to disable version 2 statuses on dizum using > DisableV2DirectoryInfo_ 1 to see what that does to the network. We > should probably finish the 2048 bits RSA keys upgrade first before > changing yet another variable. > > - If there's no convincing argument to implement opinion documents, we > close this proposal as rejected. > > What do you think? > > All the best, > Karsten > > _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
