Re: concerning tor bug report #1026

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:39:10 +0200 Sebastian Hahn <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>
>>  [stuff deleted  --SB]
>
>>     Yes, I see your comment.  However, if the decision is to go with =20=
>> making
>> the relay (not client) recognize that the authorities didn't take =20
>> the update,
>> then the ~18-hour timer should *not* be changed from its setting =20
>> before the
>> failed attempt to update.  18 hours from the previous publication =20
>> time will
>> be soon enough, at least in this situation, right?
>
>Just not publishing wouldn't be the ideal solution here. It would be =20
>even better if the relay just realized "heh, the descriptor I have is =20=
>
>about to expire soon. I'd better submit a new one to the authorities". =20=

     But *which* descriptor?  The last successful one?  Or the one that
failed?
>
>That way, they wouldn't fall off even in your case.
>
     The way to make that happen is to continue using the ~18-hour timer
that is already in service since the last successful update until and unless
the authorities accept an update, at which point the timer should be reset.
Otherwise, yes, the normal ~18-hour update will not happen until ~18 hours
after the failed update attempt, which means the relay will be absent from
any consensi issued during the interval between the original timer expiration
and the updated timer expiration.
     BTW, thank you for looking at this so quickly.  This one indeed is
much less urgent than the one Nick already fixed for me, but it's good
to know that it is being investigated.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************