Re: Family specifications (was: Re: perfect-privacy.com, Family specifications, etc)

[Paul Syverson <syverson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 02:36:01PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>      On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:12:38 -0400 Paul Syverson
> <syverson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >Your interpretation of what Bruce said makes sense. But it is not
> >how I parsed, "BelongToFamily xyz" in his message. I read it the same
> >way it seems that Roger did, as giving a list: node x, node y, and
> >node z.  And then we're off and running. I think what Bruce/you
> 
>      You parsed "xyz" as meaning "x,y,x" or perhaps "x y z"?  How bizarre.
> Even the current MyFamily statement doesn't do that.

Right. But I only saw the message in the context of Roger's reply
where he seems to have read it that way. To be generous, he was
reading an email proposing something associated with MyFamily, not
code. Also, in my experience 'xyz' (with or without spaces) is usually
used to mean a list of things rather than as a name variable like
'foo'.  To be even more generous, hey we all make mistakes and I've
probably explored this mistake's origins a fair amount farther than
interesting or productive. So stopping now.

> 
> >suggest is better than what I proposed to avoid the problems Roger and
> >Andrew noted. As I said before, it's not how MyFamily now works. And I
> 
>      No, indeed it's not.  Bruce was proposing an alternative method, one
> that looks far more sensible than the current method.
> 

I totally agree, albeit having not thought long or hard about
it. Again, partly I was simply trying to explain to myself and perhaps
others how we managed to misread the suggestion.


> >believe Andrew/Roger/me/others were addressing trying to use the
> >existing functionality in a different way, which was another
> >disconnect. Anyway, this is certainly an idea worth considering.
> >
> >Now, should you ever say you are in multiple families at once?
> 
>      That's an interesting question, and I'm not sure of the answer.
> However, it's worth noting that it would not open any useful attack
> because each time a node adds itself to a Family reduces by some amount
> its probability of being selected for a route.
> 
> >And should there be a lattice structure for families, hmmm? ;>)
> >
>      Not sure what that would accomplish.  Seems to me that a client


This and my other question were meant as jokes. Hence the emoticon.
(Some of us haven't slept recently and are a bit punchy.)
But yeah, many a theorem or system design started as jokes
while goofing around.

-Paul
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/