Re: [tor-dev] Review of Proposal 185: Directory caches without DirPort (was: Tor proposal status (December 2013))

[Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Karsten Loesing <karsten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/17/13 10:31 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> 185  Directory caches without DirPort
>>
>>      The old HTTP directory port feature is no longer used by
>>      clients and relays under most circumstances.  The proposal
>>      explains how we can get rid of the requirement that non-bridge
>>      directories have an open directory port. (6/2012)
>
> Hey Nick,
>
> this proposal looks like a fine idea.  Two remarks:
>
> - I'm not sure why a) relays with a working DirPort shouldn't include
> "dir-cache 1" in their router descriptor and b) authorities shouldn't
> assign the "DirCache" flag to relays with a working DirPort that don't
> have a "dir-cache 1" line in their router descriptor.  I understand that
> neither of the two actions are necessary to make the proposal work.  But
> this could be a chance to get rid of the DirPort concept entirely and
> only rely on "dir-cache 1" and "DirCache" flags in the future.
>
> - We should write into ChangeLog and torrc.sample that relay operators
> shouldn't rush setting their DirPort to 0 and rely on DirCache to turn
> their relay into a directory mirror.  Older clients that don't recognize
> what a DirCache is will put more load on mirrors with non-zero DirPort,
> and it's unclear how long it will take them to upgrade.

I agree on both counts.  I've patched the proposal in  8ef1e83ed9695603d4

-- 
Nick
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev