Missed a link from my last email: https://github.com/go-tor/gotor
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Michael McLoughlin <[email protected]> wrote: > After another look at the spec, I still believe the descriptor I'm > publishing conforms, as was my intention. Sorry to have caused all these > problems :( > > Heads up that there's another (nascent) tor relay implementation in the > works. I reached out to them to see if they were interested in > collaborating, but I didn't get a response. It's unclear to me what their > plans are. However Filippo Valsorda has a strong reputation so it's worth > keeping an eye on. > > Mike > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Karsten Loesing <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 2017-10-26 00:09, teor wrote: >> > On 26 Oct 2017, at 06:58, Michael McLoughlin <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I can easily change the descriptor if necessary? >> > >> > As long as it conforms to the spec, it's fine. >> >> Agreed. FWIW, the descriptor published by this relay confused Metrics >> quite a bit. But that's okay, we'll just make Metrics more robust. The >> good news is that we didn't lose any data in the process. >> >> > We should really fuzz descriptor parsers better. >> > But that's not an appropriate thing to do on the live network, and some >> > parser code only runs on descriptors on the live network. >> >> If somebody wants to generate a bunch of fuzzed descriptors that conform >> to the spec, I'll happily throw them into a local Metrics instance to >> see if anything else breaks. I could imagine that Damian would do the >> same with stem and Philipp with zoossh. >> >> All the best, >> Karsten >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tor-relays mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >> >> >
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
