[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
[or-cvs] r9890: Add specification to proposal 104; settle on "extra info" ap (in tor/trunk: . doc/spec/proposals)
- To: or-cvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [or-cvs] r9890: Add specification to proposal 104; settle on "extra info" ap (in tor/trunk: . doc/spec/proposals)
- From: nickm@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:20:02 -0400 (EDT)
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivery-date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:20:11 -0400
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-cvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 2007-03-20 23:20:01 -0400 (Tue, 20 Mar 2007)
New Revision: 9890
r12257@catbus: nickm | 2007-03-20 23:17:52 -0400
Add specification to proposal 104; settle on "extra info" approach rather than "long descriptor" approach.
Property changes on: tor/trunk
svk:merge ticket from /tor/trunk [r12257] on 8246c3cf-6607-4228-993b-4d95d33730f1
--- tor/trunk/doc/spec/proposals/104-short-descriptors.txt 2007-03-20 20:08:11 UTC (rev 9889)
+++ tor/trunk/doc/spec/proposals/104-short-descriptors.txt 2007-03-21 03:20:01 UTC (rev 9890)
@@ -9,10 +9,8 @@
This document proposes moving unused-by-clients information from regular
- router descriptors into a special "long form" router descriptor.
+ router descriptors into a new "extra info" router descriptor.
- It presents options; it is not yet a complete proposal.
Some of the costliest fields in the current directory protocol are ones
@@ -20,23 +18,21 @@
"write-history" fields are used only by the authorities for monitoring the
status of the network. If we took them out, the size of a compressed list
of all the routers would fall by about 60%. (No other disposable field
- would save more than 2%.)
+ would save much more than 2%.)
- One possible solution here is that routers should generate and upload a
- short-form and long-form descriptor. Only the short-form descriptor should
- ever be used by anybody for routing. The long-form descriptor should be
- used only for analytics and other tools. (If we allowed people to route
- with long descriptors, we'd have to ensure that they stayed in sync with
- the short ones somehow. So let's not do that.) We can ensure that the
- short descriptors are used by only recommending those in the network
+ We propose to remove these fields from descriptors, and and have them
+ uploaded as a part of a separate signed "extra info" to the authorities.
+ This document will be signed. A hash of this document will be included in
+ the regular descriptors.
- Another possible solution would be to drop these fields from descriptors,
- and have them uploaded as a part of a separate "bandwidth report" to the
- authorities. This could help prevent the mistake of using long descriptors
- in the place of short ones. It could also be generalized later to be an
- overall status report, to include sanitized GeoIP information and whatever
- else comes up.
+ (We considered another design, where routers would generate and upload a
+ short-form and a long-form descriptor. Only the short-form descriptor would
+ ever be used by anybody for routing. The long-form descriptor would be
+ used only for analytics and other tools. We decided against this because
+ well-behaved tools would need to download short-form descriptors too (as
+ these would be the only ones indexed), and hence get redundant info. Badly
+ behaved tools would download only long-form descriptors, and expose
+ themselves to partitioning attacks and that like.)
Other disposable fields:
@@ -55,63 +51,109 @@
have much disk, or have really slow disk (e.g. USB). And we don't
store caches compressed right now. -RD]
- Indexing long descriptor or bandwidth reports presents an issue: right now
- the way to make sure you have the same copy of a descriptor as everyone
- else is to request the descriptor by its digest, and to make sure that
- the digest you request is the one that the authorities like.
+ 1. Extra Info Format.
- Authorities should presumably list the digests of short descriptors, since
- that's what most everybody will be using. Including a second digest for
- long descriptors/bandwidth reports in the networkstatus would only bloat it
- with information nobody wants.
+ A "extra info" descriptor contains the following fields:
- Possible solutions are:
- 1) Drop the property that you can be sure of having the same long
- descriptor as others. This seems unoptimal, but if nobody caches
- long descriptors so you have to go to the authority to get them,
- maybe it's not so bad.
- 2) Have a separate extra-information-status that also gets generated by the
- authorities; use it to tell which long descriptors others have. Also a
- 3) Have short descriptors include a hash of the corresponding long
- descriptor/extra-info. This would keep the same order of magnitude
- performance increase (~59.2% savings as opposed to 61% savings.)
- This would require longdesc/extra-info downloaders to fetch
- router data before they could know which longdescs/extra info to fetch.
- 4) Have each authority make a signed concatenated "extra info" document,
- and hope we never need to reconcile them.
- 5) ????
+ "extra-info" Nickname IP FINGERPRINT
+ Identifies what router this is an extra info descriptor for.
+ FINGERPRINT is encoded in hex, with no spaces.
+ As currently documented in dir-spec.txt
+ As currently documented in dir-spec.txt
+ "router-signature" NL Signature NL
+ A signature of the PKCS1-padded hash of the entire extra info
+ document, taken from the beginning of the "extra-info" line, through
+ the newline after the "router-signature" line. An extra info
+ document is not valid unless the signature is performed with the
+ identity key whose digest matches FINGERPRINT.
+ The "extra-info" field is required and MUST appear first. The
+ router-signature field is required and MUST appear last. All others are
+ optional. As for other documents, unrecognized fields must be ignored.
+ 2. Existing formats
+ Implementations that use "read-history" and "write-history" SHOULD
+ accept router descriptors that contain them. (Prior to 0.2.0.x, this
+ information was encoded in ordinary router descriptors.)
+ Add these field to router descriptors:
+ "extra-info-digest" DIGEST
+ DIGEST is a hex-encoded digest of the router's extra-info document,
+ as signed in the router's extra-info. (If this field is absent,
+ no extra-info-digest exists.)
+ Present if this router is a directory cache that provides
+ extra-info documents.
+ 3. New communications rules
+ Clients SHOULD generate and upload an extra-info document after each
+ descriptor they generate and upload; no more, no less. Clients MUST
+ upload the new descriptor before they upload the new extra-info.
+ Authorities receiving an extra-info documents SHOULD verify all of the
+ * They have a router descriptor for some server with a matching
+ nickname, IP, and identity fingerprint.
+ * That server's identity key has been used to sign the extra-info
+ * The extra-info-digest field in the router descriptor matches
+ the digest of the extra-info document.
+ Authorities SHOULD try to fetch extra-info documents from one another if
+ they do not have one matching the digest declared in a router
+ Caches that are running locally with a tool that needs to use extra-info
+ documents MAY download and store extra-info documents. They should do
+ so when they notice that the recommended descriptor has an
+ extra-info-digest not matching any extra-info document they currently
+ have. (Caches not running on a host that needs to use extra-info
+ documents SHOULD NOT download or cache them.)
+ 4. New URLs
+ (As for /tor/server/ URLs: supports fetching extra-info documents
+ by their digest, by the fingerprint of their servers, or all at
+ once. Only directory authorities are guaranteed to support these
+ (The extra-info document for this router.)
+ Extra-info documents are uploaded to the same URLs as regular
+ router descriptors.
- For long/short descriptor approach:
+ For extra info approach:
- * Authorities should accept both, now, and silently drop short
- * Routers should upload both once authorities accept them.
- * There should be a "long descriptor" url named
- /tor/server/fp-detailed/ and the current "normal" URL.
- Authorities should serve long descriptors from both URLs.
- There's no such thing as asking for a long descriptor by
- its digest.
- * Once tools that want long descriptors support fetching them from the
- "long descriptor" URL:
- * Have authorities remember short descriptors, and serve them from the
- 'normal' URL.
- These tools include:
- lefkada's exit.py script.
- tor26's noreply script and general directory cache.
- https://nighteffect.us/tns/ for its graphs
- and check with or-talk for the rest, once it's time.
+ * Authorities should accept extra info, and support downloading it.
+ * Routers should upload bandwidth info once authorities accept it.
+ * Caches should support an option to download and cache it, once
+ authorities serve it.
+ * Tools should be updated to use locally cached information.
+ These tools include:
+ lefkada's exit.py script.
+ tor26's noreply script and general directory cache.
+ https://nighteffect.us/tns/ for its graphs
+ and check with or-talk for the rest, once it's time.
- For bandwidth info approach:
- * First:
- * Rename it; it won't be just bandwidth forever.
- * Authorities should accept bandwidth info
- * Routers should upload bandwidth info once authorities accept it.
- * There should be a way to download bandwidth info
* Once tools that want bandwidth info support fetching it:
* Have routers stop including bandwidth info in their router