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

Re: [tor-bugs] #3038 [Tor Directory Authority]: Update dir-spec.txt with microdesc, consensus-flavor info

#3038: Update dir-spec.txt with microdesc, consensus-flavor info
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
 Reporter:  nickm                    |          Owner:  nickm             
     Type:  defect                   |         Status:  needs_revision    
 Priority:  major                    |      Milestone:  Tor: 0.2.3.x-final
Component:  Tor Directory Authority  |        Version:                    
 Keywords:                           |         Parent:  #4933             
   Points:                           |   Actualpoints:                    
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Changes (by nickm):

  * status:  needs_review => needs_revision


Comment:

 If you have time to take another revision on this, great.  Otherwise I'll
 do it.

 General comments and notes for stuff we need to fix:

  * It is not a requirement that microdescs be a transform only of the
 routerdesc; they could also someday include authority-generated info.

  * Clients don't need identity keys; they still have identity fingerprints
 from the consensus.  This lets them correctly make extend cells, and
 recognize that they've corrected to the right first hop with their entry
 nodes.  I should add something to talk about the security model here.

   * No need to include downside and discussions in spec; that's what
 proposals are for.  Likewise with design suggestions in 4.5.

   * Consensus flavors are not "consensus-like documents": They are
 consensuses! Regular consensuses have the "ns" flavor.  The "microdesc"
 consensus flavor also exists.  It is false to say that their format is as
 yet unspecified.  Must rewrite 3.6.

  *  Some of the general language is not really spec-language. A spec is
 about saying what the system _must_ do in order to be correct; or what it
 _should_ do to perform well; or so on.  Sections 3.6 and 3.6.1 have this
 problem.

    * Section 3.8 needs to go away; it is not implemented.  As does the "an
 authority further makes the consensus index available at" part later on.
 As does the part about "Directory caches also fetch the consensus index"
 later on.  We do not merge stuff into the spec if it isn't implemented.

   *

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/3038#comment:6>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs