Re: [tor-dev] (revised) Proposal 180: Pluggable Transports for Circumvention

[Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Ian Goldberg <iang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I just took a very quick look.  Generally, I like it.  ;-)
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 05:17:23PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>>   To configure one of these programs, it should be sufficient simply to
>>   list it in your torrc.  The program tells Tor which transports it
>>   provides.  The Tor consensus should carry a new approved version number that
>>   is specific for pluggable transport; this will allow Tor to know when a
>>   particular transport is known to be unsafe safe or non-functional.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the above.

Ah, this idea didn't seem to go anywhere during the design phase.  It
might need more attention.  The original idea (IIUC) was that the
consensus should be able to recommend/disrecommend given transport
types and versions, so that if there were a nasty bug discovered in
one, we could tell folks not to use it.  If/when we finally get good
automated updates working, this ought to be less necessary.  I don't
have a good sense for whether or not it's something we want to design
and build.

I fixed up the other issues you mentioned in the git repo as of commit
eda9c36984 .  Thanks!
-- 
Nick
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev