Hi,
On July 11, 2019 12:37:03 AM UTC, neel@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I'm really sorry about the delay in responding to your review. I was
busy with an internship (unrelated to Tor, but still related to
security) and was out a lot in my "free time".
I have implemented your requested changes and the GitHub PR is here:
https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/87
Hopefully I have not missed anything.
Most of these changes you (Iain and Teor) suggested sound good. I'm
not
a huge fan of preferring IPv4 in the case of tunneled IPv6
connections
(reason: we stay with IPv4 longer than we should), but understand why
you have it (reason: better network performance) and have added this
change anyways.
Thanks for these revisions.
I have some overall comments on the proposal:
1. The proposal is very large now. Let's add an intro section that
splits the changes into:
* initial feasability testing (for initial developer review)
* minimum viable product (for testing in Tor Browser Alpha)
* parameter tuning (for performance, load, and user experience)
* relay statistics (for ongoing monitoring)
* optional features, and how we will know if we need them (if users
experience particular bugs)
2. Bridges can't be configured with an IPv4 and an IPv6 address in
tor, because tor only accepts one IP address per bridge. Let's be
clear that bridges are out of scope. (Tor already attempts to connect
to all? its configured bridges.)
3. Each revision of this proposal has added text. Is there any text
that is redundant or not essential? Can we make it shorter?
After these revisions, I will do a final review. I hope we can get
another tor developer to also do a final review.
T
--
teor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev