> On 23 Feb 2019, at 02:10, Iain Learmonth <irl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hi all, > > On 22/02/2019 12:29, Nick Mathewson wrote: >>> I had to read this paragraph twice to understand it. >>> The way it's written, it sounds like we're doing a bad thing. >>> (Until I read the "security" section at the end of the proposal.) >>> >>> Can you mention the positive aspects in the Abstract? > > Rewritten this. > >> Instead I'd go with a phrasing like, >> "Authorities will continue computing consensus package lines in the >> consensus if the consensus method is between 19 and (N-1). If the >> consensus method is N or later, they omit these lines." > > This sounds good too. > > Updated draft is attached. Thanks! Looks good to me, let's merge it as an "accepted" proposal? T
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev