Re: concerning tor bug report #1026

[Sebastian Hahn <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:

>     Yes, I see the mistake now.  My apologies.  I was still thinking  
> about
> the "Last edited by" field at the top of the report. :-(

no problem at all

>     Okay.  From Roger's comment, I wasn't sure.  In any case, it is  
> *not*
> an old report.  This happened late last week, Thursday, IIRC.

Jup, Roger and I were thinking that the relay descriptor was changed.

>     Yes, I see your comment.  However, if the decision is to go with  
> making
> the relay (not client) recognize that the authorities didn't take  
> the update,
> then the ~18-hour timer should *not* be changed from its setting  
> before the
> failed attempt to update.  18 hours from the previous publication  
> time will
> be soon enough, at least in this situation, right?

Just not publishing wouldn't be the ideal solution here. It would be  
even better if the relay just realized "heh, the descriptor I have is  
about to expire soon. I'd better submit a new one to the authorities".  
That way, they wouldn't fall off even in your case.

>     I am approaching the conclusion that there may be quite a few  
> ways in
> which relays may be incorrectly dropped from the consensus and that  
> it may
> take a while to pin each of them down. :-)

Yes, that is unfortunately correct. We often don't notice, because it  
takes max 18 hours for them to be back online, but we've been tracking  
down some of the issues.

>                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG

Best
Sebastian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAkpTbB4ACgkQCADWu989zua/0gCeK7w00Sk98x8SCatnnOCAlRXo
Ax0An1YU+3fsSqZIuc/EkAwFRv0hrQlS
=TBz5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----