On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 02:45:28PM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:01:16PM -0800, coderman wrote: > > On 3/8/07, Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >I think a fix_able_ cap probably gets us most of the benefit: if we > > >change the cap, only the directory servers need to change their code > > >or configuration. > > > > seems reasonable; the nature of the network is going to vary (perhaps > > significantly) with size and age... > > Ok. I think we're all happy to accept this proposal -- Nick, can > you check it into the proposals section and integrate this thread > into a 'decisions' section or something? Done. Since you've implemented it, I've made the original "cap uptime" idea a proposal in 107, then amended it with the decided interpretation. I've put my MTBF idea in as proposal 108. cheers, -- Nick Mathewson
Attachment:
pgpcQsT5lSBkW.pgp
Description: PGP signature