Sebastian Hahn transcribed 3.9K bytes: > Hi Sebastian, > > thanks for looking after the network! > > On 16 Aug 2014, at 22:56, Sebastian G. <bastik.tor> wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 19:46:15 +0000 (UTC) the doctor said: > >> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to maatuska was missing the following authority signatures: tor26 > >> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to tor26 was missing the following authority signatures: tor26 > >> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to urras was missing the following authority signatures: tor26 > >> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to dizum was missing the following authority signatures: tor26 > >> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to gabelmoo was missing the following authority signatures: tor26 > >> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to moria1 was missing the following authority signatures: tor26 > >> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to dannenberg was missing the following authority signatures: tor26 > >> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to Faravahar was missing the following authority signatures: tor26 > > > > If I understand this messages correctly tor26 didn't sign the consensus > > of any other authority. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) > > > > How is it possible that tor26 doesn't sign its own consensus? > > Here's an easy theory on what might have happened: When it was time to > vote, tor26 made a vote, and distributed it to the other dirauths. When > it was done doing so, it went offline. The other dirauths made a > consensus, and signed it. tor26 came back online, learned that there was > a consensus it didn't know about, fetched it from the other dirauths, > but didn't sign it - because the time to sign it was in the past. This > does not constitute an error condition for tor26, because enough other > dirauths signed it for it to be considered valid. > > I'd argue against increasing the complexity of the voting process to > handle this rare edge case. I do think maybe the wording is confusing: > What does "Consensus belonging to" mean? A consensus doesn't belong to > any individual dirauth. I don't have a quick suggestion for what to > name the notice instead, tho. > s/Consensus belonging to/Consensus as reported by/ Only somewhat tangential, I still believe we shouldn't be mincing terms: a consensus is full agreement without any blockers, whereas what Tor uses is merely a democratic vote. Consensus-based decision making and democracy are such different beasts that I might fight for the prior, yet would nearly always denounce the latter as majoritarianist fascism-in-disguise. > > A similar message was send on the 15th for gabelmoo, but gabelmoo had no > > notice line. There were two warning, first gabelmoo did not publish a > > fresh consensus and secondly it did not report bandwidth scanner > > results. Nothing I would have worried about. Nor would I have found strange. > > Yes, gabelmoo was down as I was fixing its bw auth. Nothing to worry > about indeed. > > > However an authority handing out a consensus it didn't sign might be > > something that isn't quite right. > > I think it's OK, considering the above. > Sebastian (err, the "bastik" one :) ), you might consider joining the #tor-bots channel on OFTC, it'll give you updates on the myriad ways that the DirAuths are constantly being painful for their poor maintainers. :) -- ââ isis agora lovecruft _________________________________________________________ GPG: 4096R/A3ADB67A2CDB8B35 Current Keys: https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/isis.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk