[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
[or-cvs] [tor/master] Add proposal 177: Abstaining from votes on individual flags
commit c1c8f51d77fef58f6015250acad5ee8c51d6aa10
Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Feb 14 14:22:14 2011 -0500
Add proposal 177: Abstaining from votes on individual flags
---
doc/spec/proposals/000-index.txt | 2 +
doc/spec/proposals/177-flag-abstention.txt | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/spec/proposals/000-index.txt b/doc/spec/proposals/000-index.txt
index d984119..580ce36 100644
--- a/doc/spec/proposals/000-index.txt
+++ b/doc/spec/proposals/000-index.txt
@@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ Proposals by number:
174 Optimistic Data for Tor: Server Side [OPEN]
175 Automatically promoting Tor clients to nodes [DRAFT]
176 Proposed version-3 link handshake for Tor [DRAFT]
+177 Abstaining from votes on individual flags [DRAFT]
Proposals by status:
@@ -111,6 +112,7 @@ Proposals by status:
170 Configuration options regarding circuit building
175 Automatically promoting Tor clients to nodes
176 Proposed version-3 link handshake for Tor [for 0.2.3]
+ 177 Abstaining from votes on individual flags
NEEDS-REVISION:
131 Help users to verify they are using Tor
OPEN:
diff --git a/doc/spec/proposals/177-flag-abstention.txt b/doc/spec/proposals/177-flag-abstention.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0b4a9ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/spec/proposals/177-flag-abstention.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+Filename: 177-flag-abstention.txt
+Title: Abstaining from votes on individual flags
+Author: Nick Mathewson
+Created: 14 Feb 2011
+Status: Draft
+
+Overview:
+
+ We should have a way for authorities to vote on flags in
+ particular instances, without having to vote on that flag for all
+ servers.
+
+Motivation:
+
+ Suppose that the status of some router becomes controversial, and
+ an authority wants to vote for or against the BadExit status of
+ that router. Suppose also that the authority is not currently
+ voting on the BadExit flag. If the authority wants to say that
+ the router is or is not "BadExit", it cannot currently do so
+ without voting yea or nay on the BadExit status of all other
+ routers.
+
+ Suppose that an authority wants to vote "Valid" or "Invalid" on a
+ large number of routers, but does not have an opinion on some of
+ them. Currently, it cannot do so: if it votes for the Valid flag
+ anywhere, it votes for it everywhere.
+
+Design:
+
+ We add a new line "extra-flags" in directory votes, to appear
+ after "known-flags". It lists zero or more flags that an
+ authority has occasional opinions on, but for which the authority
+ will usually abstain. No flag may appear in both extra-flags and
+ known-flags.
+
+ In the router-status section for each directory vote, we allow an
+ optional "s2" line to appear after the "s" line. It contains
+ zero or more flag votes. A flag vote is of the form of one of
+ "+", "-", or "/" followed by the name of a flag. "+" denotes a
+ yea vote, and "-" denotes a nay vote, and "/" notes an
+ abstention. Authorities may omit most abstentions, except as
+ noted below. No flag may appear in an s2 line unless it appears
+ in the known-flags or extra-flags line.We retain the rule that no
+ flag may appear in an s line unless it appears in the known-flags
+ line.
+
+ When using an appropriate consensus method to vote, we use these
+ new rules to determine flags:
+
+ A flag is listed in the consensus if it is in the known-flags
+ section of at least one voter, and in the known-flags or
+ extra-flags section of at least three voters (or half the
+ authorities, whichever set is smaller).
+
+ A single authority's vote for a given flag on a given router is
+ interpreted as follows:
+
+ - If the authority votes +Flag or -Flag or /Flag in the s2 line for
+ that router, the vote is "yea" or "nay" or "abstain" respectively.
+ - Otherwise, if the flag is listed on the "s" line for the
+ router, then the vote is "yea".
+ - Otherwise, if the flag is listed in the known-flags line,
+ then the vote is "nay".
+ - Otherwise, the vote is "abstain".
+
+ A router is assigned a flag in the consensus iff the total "yeas"
+ outnumber the total "nays".
+
+ As an exception, this proposal does not affect the behavior of
+ the "Named" and "Unnamed" flags; these are still treated as
+ before. (An authority can already abstain from a single naming
+ decision by not voting Named on any router with a given name.)
+
+Examples:
+
+ Suppose that it becomes important to know which Tor servers are
+ operated by burrowing marsupials. Some authority operators
+ diligently research this question; others want to vote about
+ individual routers on an ad hoc basis when they learn about a
+ particular router's being e.g. located underground in New South
+ Wales.
+
+ If an authority usually has no opinions on the RunByWombats flag,
+ it should list it in the "extra-flags" of its votes. If it
+ occasionally wants to vote that a router is (or is not) run by
+ wombats, it should list "s2 +RunByWombats" or "s2 -RunByWombats"
+ for the routers in question. Otherwise it can omit the flag from
+ its s and s2 lines entirely.
+
+ If an authority usually has an opinion on the RunByWombats flag,
+ but wants to abstain in some cases, it should list "RunByWombats"
+ in the "known-flags" part of its votes, and include
+ "RunByWombats" in the s line for every router that it believes is
+ run by wombats. When it wants to vote that a router is not run
+ by wombats, it should list the RunByWombats flag in neither the s
+ nor the s2 line. When it wants to abstain, it should list "s2
+ /RunByWombats".
+
+ In both cases, when the new consensus method is used, a router
+ will get listed as "RunByWombats" if there are more authorities
+ that say it is run by wombats than there are authorities saying
+ it is not run by wombats. (As now, "no" votes win ties.)
+
+