On 16 Jan (16:21:30), John Brooks wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 2016, at 4:52 AM, George Kadianakis <desnacked@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Yes, I think I agree with this evaluation for now. Seems prop246 is more > > complicated than we can handle, and we should probably postpone it, except if > > someone can analyze it well soon. > > I agree. There are too many open questions with proposal 246 to plan on > implementing it in the same timeframe as weâre working on proposal 224. > > I suggest we change the proposal status to âNeeds-Researchâ, and plan to gather all > of these comments and make a real analysis of the tradeoffs at some later point. I second that. This thread outlines enough concerns to put this proposal back in research mode. Here is the commit torspec for that change. Please _NACK_ if you are unhappy with it else in a day or so I'll push this. https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/dgoulet/torspec.git/commit/?h=prop246-research&id=a4053594a34b141c5f05af54a7d15f1bf22952d9 Cheers! David > > - special > > _______________________________________________ > tor-dev mailing list > tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev