[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #30365 [Core Tor/Tor]: prop289: Update tor-spec.txt with authenticated SENDME spec
#30365: prop289: Update tor-spec.txt with authenticated SENDME spec
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Reporter: dgoulet | Owner: dgoulet
Type: task | Status:
| needs_review
Priority: Medium | Milestone: Tor:
| 0.4.1.x-final
Component: Core Tor/Tor | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: tor-spec, prop289, sendme, | Actual Points: 0.2
041-should |
Parent ID: #26288 | Points: 0.2
Reviewer: nickm | Sponsor:
| SponsorV
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Changes (by dgoulet):
* status: needs_revision => needs_review
Comment:
Replying to [comment:4 nickm]:
> This mostly lgtm but I would like Roger to have a look at it before we
merge, since he's likeliest to remember anything that it gets wrong about
the flow control algorithm.
>
> There are a few points where I would like clarification:
>
> 1.
> {{{
> + Note that these limits do NOT apply to cells that tor receives from
one
> + host and relays to another. Circuit-level flow control is end-to-end
so
> + both ends track these windows, never the middle points.
> }}}
> This text above is a little misleading. Because of our leaky pipe
topology, ''every'' relay on the circuit has a pair of windows, and the OP
has a pair of windows for every relay on the circuit. These windows do
not apply to relayed cells, however, and a relay that is never used for
streams will never decrement its window or cause the client to decrement a
window.
Good catch! I've actually re-used this paragraph your wrote which I think
explains it great!
>
> 2.
> {{{
> + An OR or OP (depending of the stream direction), is willing to
receive more
> + cells when its deliver window goes down below a full increment
(100). For
> + example, if the window started at 1000, it should send a
RELAY_SENDME when
> + it reaches 900.
> }}}
> Instead of saying "is willing" I'd suggest saying "sends a RELAY_SENDME
cell to indicate that it is willing".
Fixed.
>
> 3.
> {{{
> + The DIGEST is the rolling digest value from the cell that
immediately
> + preceded this RELAY_SENDME. This value is matched on the other
side
> + from the previous cell sent that the OR/OP must remember.
> }}}
> When you say "the cell that immediately preceded", let's clarify what
kind of cell. I think you mean "the RELAY cell on the same circuit from
the same sender that immediately preceded", but maybe you mean only
RELAY_DATA?
Yes, it is `RELAY_DATA` cell. I've clarified.
>
> 4.
> Does anything in this text say that if you get a RELAY_DATA cell when
your deliver window is 0, you should kill the circuit? If not, it should.
Added!
>
> 5.
> Also, a suggestion:
> {{{
> -Author: Rob Jansen, Roger Dingledine
> +Author: Roger Dingledine, David Goulet, Rob Jansen
> }}}
> Sometimes people in academia try to send important social signals
through author ordering. Please check with Rob and Roger before re-
ordering the authors here.
Wow! that is true lol, ordering matters for them... Ok I went in
alphabetical order, I'll just put my name at the end, will save us all the
troubles :). For me, this is mostly useful to know "who to contact" if any
questions ;).
See the fixup commit `b8b6bb938f3238e5`.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/30365#comment:5>
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