Re: [tor-bugs] #25544 [Core Tor/Tor]: Complete vanguard specification

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

#25544: Complete vanguard specification
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
 Reporter:  asn                                  |          Owner:  (none)
     Type:  defect                               |         Status:
                                                 |  needs_review
 Priority:  Medium                               |      Milestone:  Tor:
                                                 |  0.3.4.x-final
Component:  Core Tor/Tor                         |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                               |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  tor-guard, torspec, guard-           |  Actual Points:
  discovery, 034-roadmap-master,                 |
  034-triage-20180328, 034-included-20180328     |
Parent ID:                                       |         Points:
 Reviewer:  asn                                  |        Sponsor:
                                                 |  SponsorV
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Changes (by asn):

 * status:  needs_revision => needs_review


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:9 mikeperry]:
 > Replying to [comment:8 asn]:
 > > Mike, your changes look good to me.
 > >
 > > I pushed another commit on my github repo at `mesh-vanguards` with
 some more text on how the python script is used right now. If you think
 that's inappropriate for the proposal let me now.
 >
 > Seems good.
 >
 > > I think now is the time to decide what's the role of prop#247 and
 what's the role of `xxx-mesh-vanguards.txt`. I think it's confusing to let
 both of them live at the same time because they are pretty similar in
 terms of text. We should figure this out so that we get this merged in
 torspec.
 > >
 > > Should we let prop#247 be "Vanguard integration inside Tor core",
 whereas this new proposal is "Mesh vanguard design using external script"?
 And make both of them proper proposals (aka get a proposal number for this
 new one too). Or what should be the plan?
 >
 > I think that the final Tor implementation should match the vanguards
 repo behavior (and what this new proposal says), not 247. Because what
 proposal 247 proposed is different enough than what we're doing in the
 vanguards repo (and what is specified in this proposal) that we should
 mark 247 as superseded by this one. It felt weird tossing aside the old
 247 material entirely.
 >
 > I don't have a strong preference for this, but it seems natural to me.
 Argument against might be that we've been saying prop#247 everywhere, but
 I think as long as 247 as marked as superseded and mentions the new
 proposal, this is OK.

 Sounds good. Take a look at my branch `mesh-vanguards-squashed` in my
 repo. It's rebased to latest master, I squashed all the vanguard-mesh
 commits together, and I superseded prop#247.

 The only thing that needs to happen before merging is replace all the
 `xxx-mesh-vanguards.txt` parts with the actual number we give to the new
 proposal.

 Check it out and let's merge ready it if you like it.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/25544#comment:10>
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