On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:46:36AM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 11:23:58PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote: > > I've added a draft specification to proposal 104, and incorporated the > > results of this discussion as I understand them. With luck, there > > will be enough detail to this thing now that we can figure out how it > > will work. > > Great. Two things come to mind as I'm looking through the new version: > > 1) What is IP doing there? I guess I could see IP:ORPort, if we want to > be able to fetch something ourselves, but when it's just IP, I can't > imagine what use it is. (The Nickname seems plausible for manual use, > so we can see what server it's for at a glance. Was IP meant to be a > secondary disambiguator?) We could expand to IP:ORPort, leave it alone, > or just take it out; my feeling is towards taking it out. It was meant to be a secondary disambiguator; I'm fine taking it out. I'll do that now. > 2) Should we demand that the published_on in the extra-info match the > published_on in the router descriptor? If we're having it there for > debugging purposes, making it more predictable might be handy. And it > shouldn't be hard to do. Good idea. Done. I've also clarified a couple of other points in the proposal. Let's get this one done soon. yrs, -- Nick Mathewson
Attachment:
pgpavNcaFGRH2.pgp
Description: PGP signature