On 18 Jan (10:23:08), David Goulet wrote:
> 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
I got a ACK from asn yesterday and no NACK.
This proposal is officially back in "Need-Research" status and this
email thread has been referenced in the proposal (like you can see in
the commit above). See torspec master:
commit a4053594a34b141c5f05af54a7d15f1bf22952d9
Cheers!
David
>
> Cheers!
> David
>
> >
> > - special
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tor-dev mailing list
> > tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
> _______________________________________________
> 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