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

Re: concerning tor bug report #1026

     On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:10:00 +0200 Sebastian Hahn <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>On Jul 7, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>> [snip]
>>     But *which* descriptor?  The last successful one?  Or the one that
>> failed?
>They generate a new one, based on their current config options.

     I think you snipped just a bit too much above.  You wrote that the
relay needs to recognize when its descriptor is about to expire.  I asked
which descriptor [is about to expire]?  So your reply above is nonsensical.
(Surely, a brand-new descriptor is not just about to expire?)  The new
descriptor is generated to replace some earlier descriptor, namely, either
the descriptor that was already in effect at the time of the failed update
or else the descriptor that failed the update.  So which one's timer is used
to ascertain that a descriptor is about to expire?  I argue that, in the
event of an update failure, the expiration time of the descriptor already
on file at the authorities should be used to determine when a new descriptor
should be sent to the authorities, not the expiration time that would have
applied to the failed descriptor had it succeeded.
>>     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.
>Sure. I have written a fix and handed it to Nick for review.
     Okay.  I hope it works.

                                  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         *