[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: concerning tor bug report #1026

Hash: SHA1

Hi Scott,

On Jul 7, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
I submitted tor bug report #1026 via Jon <scream@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >, who volunteered to post it to bugs.torproject.org for me because that web site refuses to log me in. (Should I write up a bug report on that, too?) The report has since accumulated two comments, one on Saturday by Karsten Loesing and one on Monday by Roger Dingledine. I address their comments
here because I am unable to do so on the web site.

I assume by Karsten you mean Sebastian :-)

Karsten and Roger, there seems to be some confusion over the way the bug report is listed in its indexed information. I do not know why it is
listed as a tor client bug when it clearly should be listed as a tor
relay (a.k.a. "server") bug (likewise for #996). I cannot account either
for the severity and priority rankings for either #1026 or #996.  The
version in the title of #1026 ( is the correct version for
which the symptoms are being reported, not as shown in the
indexed information as the "Reported Version".

Yes, the bug was reported using different settings than what you have reported, however, I was fully aware that this is a relay bug and that the version is

I would like to reiterate that the bug is not a bug in the authority
functions of tor, but rather a bug in the relay descriptor-updating
functions of tor. Nothing but the date+timestamp was changed in the new descriptor update sent to the authorities, but it was sent much earlier than the normal time for the ~18-hourly update, so the relay *SHOULD NOT*
have sent the update in the first place.  That is the whole point.

This is more curious, and explains how I misread the first version of the bugreport. I see the problem now, see explanation in the bugreport once I get around to updating it.

Please feel free to copy the above information into the comments area
for bug report #1026.
    Thank you.

                                 Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG

Thanks for reporting,