Re: [tor-bugs] #33008 [Metrics/Relay Search]: Display a bridge's distribution bucket

["Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki" <blackhole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#33008: Display a bridge's distribution bucket
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
 Reporter:  phw                                  |          Owner:
                                                 |  metrics-team
     Type:  enhancement                          |         Status:
                                                 |  needs_review
 Priority:  Medium                               |      Milestone:
Component:  Metrics/Relay Search                 |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                               |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  s30-o24a1, anti-censorship-roadmap-  |  Actual Points:
  2020Q1 metrics-team-roadmap-2020Q1             |
Parent ID:  #31281                               |         Points:  2
 Reviewer:  cohosh                               |        Sponsor:
                                                 |  Sponsor30-can
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------

Comment (by karsten):

 Replying to [comment:19 phw]:
 > Replying to [comment:16 cohosh]:
 > > - "Unallocated" isn't a very simple or descriptive word to describe
 that bucket. Can we use "private"
 > >  instead? Perhaps this is too late in the game to change it, but it
 seems a bit contradictory since these bridges are allocated to the
 unallocated bucket.
 > [[br]]
 > Yes, I see your point. I don't like "private" because we already use
 that term for bridges that don't report themselves to the authority. I
 like computer_freak's suggestion of "reserved" but I actually prefer
 keeping "unallocated" because the cost of changing this term seems to
 outweigh the benefit of using a somewhat more descriptive term.
 >
 > I wonder what Karsten thinks?

 My initial thought was that we shouldn't change the term, because bridge
 pool assignment files contain it and because Onionoo includes it in its
 response.

 But I think we need to consider something else here. Bridge operators can
 request in their torrc file how their bridge is going to be distributed.
 [https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n655
 Recognized methods are: "none", "any", "https", "email", "moat".]

 Maybe we'll have to say "None" here rather than "Unallocated"?

 Note that case doesn't matter in case of configuring this in the torrc
 file. "HTTPS" is accepted just like "https" or "hTtPs" are. So it's fine
 to write "HTTPS".

 To make this even more complicated, it turns out that a non-zero number of
 bridges does not have BridgeDB distribution information:

  - 553 moat
  - 505 https
  - 191 email
  - 76 none
  - 37 unallocated

 The 37 "unallocated" bridges are the ones we're talking about above.

 But I'm not yet sure why those 76 bridges are not included in any
 distributor, not even the "unallocated" distributor. It could be that
 they're too new (bridge pool assignment files are only synced once per day
 at UTC midnight). It could have other reasons like older tor versions.

 In any case it seems possible that a bridge will show up with "none" in
 Relay Search, and we might have to provide information on BridgeDB's
 information page what that means. In a way these bridges are truly
 unallocated.

 Hmm. Hmm.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/33008#comment:20>
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