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

Re: [tor-bugs] #29207 [Circumvention/Snowflake]: New design for broker -- proxy protocol for snowflakes

#29207: New design for broker -- proxy protocol for snowflakes
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
 Reporter:  cohosh                               |          Owner:  cohosh
     Type:  enhancement                          |         Status:
                                                 |  assigned
 Priority:  High                                 |      Milestone:
Component:  Circumvention/Snowflake              |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                               |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  snowflake, design, ex-sponsor-19,    |  Actual Points:
  anti-censorship-roadmap                        |
Parent ID:                                       |         Points:  5
 Reviewer:                                       |        Sponsor:
                                                 |  Sponsor28-must
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------

Comment (by dcf):

 Replying to [comment:15 dcf]:
 > Replying to [comment:13 serna]:
 > > I suggest changing the status to 204 No Content, it would represent
 that there's no error but it also no one to connect to.
 >
 > I disagree here. It's better not to hide ''any'' necessary information
 in the HTTP layer, because not every way of interacting with the broker
 will have those HTTP features. See for example comment:11:ticket:25985.
 Even assuming HTTP, codes like 204 are probably less likely to pass
 untouched by proxies. I propose to just always use status code 200, unless
 there is a genuine internal server error, and encode ''all'' necessary
 information in the HTTP body. We're not designing a REST interface here.

 Let me slightly amend my statement here. I was mistakenly thinking that
 this was about the client–broker protocol, not the proxy–broker protocol.
 While I do think that it's important to avoid HTTP entanglement in the
 client–broker protocol (#29293), in the proxy–broker protocol there's
 probably no harm in assuming HTTP in the proxy–broker protocol. That said,
 there's also no harm in moving that information into the body, as in
 comment:20.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/29207#comment:21>
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