[or-cvs] r15312: add weasel's mid june progress (website/trunk/projects/en)

[arma@xxxxxxxx]

Author: arma
Date: 2008-06-16 16:43:36 -0400 (Mon, 16 Jun 2008)
New Revision: 15312

Modified:
   website/trunk/projects/en/lowbandwidth.wml
Log:
add weasel's mid june progress


Modified: website/trunk/projects/en/lowbandwidth.wml
===================================================================
--- website/trunk/projects/en/lowbandwidth.wml	2008-06-16 20:31:25 UTC (rev 15311)
+++ website/trunk/projects/en/lowbandwidth.wml	2008-06-16 20:43:36 UTC (rev 15312)
@@ -134,9 +134,106 @@
 implementation and testing work on February 15, 2009.
 </p>
 
-<!-- Where do we put status reports? The idea here is to create separate pages.
--->
+<tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5">
+  <td>
+    Jun 08
+  </td>
+  <td>
+    <small><em>We did some initial measuring of Tor clients
+    bootstrapping. The results are not very surprising: a client
+    fetches about 10k of certs, one consensus for 140k (now 90k, see
+    next paragraph), and about 1.5 megs of Server Descriptors (after
+    half of which it starts building circuits).</small></em>
+    <br />
+    <a href="https://svn.torproject.org/svn/tor/trunk/doc/spec/proposals/138-remove-down-routers-from-consensus.txt";>Proposal
+    138</a> shrinks consensus documents by 30% to
+    40% and has already been implemented and merged into the spec.
+    Implementation is part of the 0.2.1.x-alpha tree and the code will
+    take effect used once two-thirds of the authorities have
+    upgraded.</small></em>
+    <br />
+    <small><em><a href="https://svn.torproject.org/svn/tor/trunk/doc/spec/proposals/140-consensus-diffs.txt";>Proposal
+    140</a> does not directly relate to reducing initial download size,
+    but instead tries to make subsequent downloads of new consensus
+    documents use fewer bytes has also been written up and <a
+    href="http://archives.seul.org/or/dev/Jun-2008/msg00013.html";>sent to
+    or-dev</a>. There are some questions to be answered from other Tor
+    developers first, but other than that I think it's fine and could
+    be implemented.</small></em>
+    <br />
+    <small><em>The Big Thing is making clients not download all 1.5 megs
+    of server descriptors. <a href="https://svn.torproject.org/svn/tor/trunk/doc/spec/proposals/141-jit-sd-downloads.txt";>Proposal
+    141</a> has been <a
+    href="http://archives.seul.org/or/dev/Jun-2008/msg00017.html";>sent
+    to the or-dev list</a>. There are basically 3 things to it, as
+    far as I can see at the moment: move load balancing info into the
+    consensus (should not be hard), implement something so that Tor
+    clients can fetch SDs on demand from routers along their circuit
+    while they are buliding it (described in the draft), and deal with
+    exit selection. We're developing ideas for the last part, although
+    some possibilities are mentioned in the draft.</small></em>
+  </td>
+</tr>
 
+<tr>
+  <td>
+    Jul 08
+  </td>
+  <td>
+  </td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5">
+  <td>
+    Aug 08
+  </td>
+  <td>
+  </td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+  <td>
+    Sep 08
+  </td>
+  <td>
+  </td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5">
+  <td>
+    Oct 08
+  </td>
+  <td>
+  </td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+  <td>
+    Nov 08
+  </td>
+  <td>
+  </td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5">
+  <td>
+    Dec 08
+  </td>
+  <td>
+  </td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+  <td>
+    Jan 09
+  </td>
+  <td>
+  </td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<br />
+
 <!-- Do we want a people section? If so, would it make sense to write what
 these people will be doing? And---what exactly are these people going to
 do? :)