[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: concerning tor bug report #1026
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
Yes, I see the mistake now. My apologies. I was still thinking
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
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
the relay (not client) recognize that the authorities didn't take
then the ~18-hour timer should *not* be changed from its setting
failed attempt to update. 18 hours from the previous publication
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
which relays may be incorrectly dropped from the consensus and that
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----