On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:53:24PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 12:46:59PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote: > > > > (This whole proposal is meant only for v3 dir flags; we shouldn't try > > > > to backport it to the v2 dir world.) > > > > > > Can we still list the unnamed routers in the v2 status, even without an > > > unnamed flag? Because if not and I enable auto-naming on tor26 I'll stop > > > listing about 150 routers for using names that are already taken. > > > > That shouldn't be a problem ; the v2 status is generated pretty > > independently from the v3 consensus. I think it's best to leave v2 > > directories more or less alone and reserve new features for the v3 > > directory system only. > > If Peter adds many lines to his approved-routers file (as he is suggesting > he'll do), then these will affect both v2 and v3 networkstatuses. If we > only have this Unnamed thing for v3, then the result is that Peter's v2 > authority will stop listing about 15% of the network. This is bad. > > Unless we add a notion of Naming that applies only to v3. Now I get it. I've looked through the 0.1.2.x code, and as near as I can tell, nothing bad will happen if the Unnamed servers are listed in 0.1.2.x alongside a Named variant. There _is_ a problem if the Named one is missing: as now, clients will react to the nickname by warning and using one of the unnamed servers. But that's as bad as current behavior IMO. Peter: would you like to patch the results of this thread into proposal 122, so I can get started implementing it? yrs, -- Nick Mathewson
Attachment:
pgp4zjbaiHGZL.pgp
Description: PGP signature