Re: Proposal 158 revised: Microdescriptors again

[Sebastian Hahn <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 16, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Nick Mathewson wrote:

> As long promised, I've revised Roger's January proposal on
> microdescriptors.  Here's the latest version.  It incorporates (I
> hope) our discussions on the topic, plus suggestions based on proposal
> 162.
> [snip]

>  (We use base64 for size and for consistency with the consensus
>  format. We use -s instead of +s to separate these items, since

this sentence's end is not
what is it trying to

I thought about issues when we add/remove more than one authority  
before all operators had a chance to upgrade or upgrade again (in case  
of removal), but couldn't come up with an actually bad situation. But  
this led to the realization that the work flow described just talks  
about one authority getting added/removed at a time, I think the  
situation with more than one change can quickly get complex (and it's  
easy to imagine that with 15 authorities, some operators will be on  
vacation for a month, for example). The proposal could maybe be  
clearer on how those cases should be handled by the operators.


Sebastian