[or-cvs] r9567: Mark proposal 106 accepted. (in tor/trunk: . doc/spec/proposals)

[nickm@xxxxxxxx]

Author: nickm
Date: 2007-02-12 14:56:07 -0500 (Mon, 12 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 9567

Modified:
   tor/trunk/
   tor/trunk/doc/spec/proposals/106-less-tls-constraint.txt
Log:
 r11767@catbus:  nickm | 2007-02-12 14:56:03 -0500
 Mark proposal 106 accepted.



Property changes on: tor/trunk
___________________________________________________________________
 svk:merge ticket from /tor/trunk [r11767] on 8246c3cf-6607-4228-993b-4d95d33730f1

Modified: tor/trunk/doc/spec/proposals/106-less-tls-constraint.txt
===================================================================
--- tor/trunk/doc/spec/proposals/106-less-tls-constraint.txt	2007-02-12 09:06:25 UTC (rev 9566)
+++ tor/trunk/doc/spec/proposals/106-less-tls-constraint.txt	2007-02-12 19:56:07 UTC (rev 9567)
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 Last-Modified: $Date: 2007-01-30T07:50:01.643717Z $
 Author: Nick Mathewson
 Created:
-Status: Open
+Status: Accepted
 
 Overview:
 
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@
     there's really no harm in letting every router have any commonName it
     wants.
 [this is the better choice -rd]
+[agreed. -nm]
 
 REMAINING WAYS TO RECOGNIZE CLIENT->SERVER CONNECTIONS:
 
@@ -91,8 +92,8 @@
     server running TLS, and believe that you're talking to a Tor server (until
     you send the first cell).
 
-    It will be far easier for non-Tor SSL clients to accidentally to Tor servers
-    and speak HTTPS or whatever to them.
+    It will be far easier for non-Tor SSL clients to accidentally connect to
+    Tor servers and speak HTTPS or whatever to them.
 
 If, in a later release, we have clients not send certificates, and we make
 DNs less recognizable:
@@ -104,5 +105,8 @@
 
     If clients don't send certs, they look slightly less like servers.
 
+OTHER SPEC CHANGES:
 
-
+When a client doesn't give us an identity, we should never extend any
+circuits to it (duh), and we should allow it to set circuit ID however it
+wants.