commit 882d000484a53ca3d0f8ba2c00951e042b596e88 Author: Nick Mathewson nickm@torproject.org Date: Wed Jun 29 18:04:16 2011 -0400
Clarify control-spec.txt on "tolerating" extra k=vs
This brings control-spec.txt into compliance with what I meant when I wrote the relevant portions; I note in the text that not all controllers are currently compliant. --- control-spec.txt | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/control-spec.txt b/control-spec.txt index 79c3aeb..160adf4 100644 --- a/control-spec.txt +++ b/control-spec.txt @@ -40,6 +40,47 @@
Servers respond to messages in the order messages are received.
+1.1. Forward-compatibility + + This is an evolving protocol; new client and server behavior will be + allowed in future versions. To allow new backward-compatible client + on behalf of the client, we may add new commands and allow existing + commands to take new arguments in future versions. To allow new + backward-compatible server behavior, we note various places below + where servers speaking a future versions of this protocol may insert + new data, and note that clients should/must "tolerate" unexpected + elements in these places. There are two ways that we do this: + + * Adding a new field to a message: + + For example, we might say "This message has three space-separated + fields; clients MUST tolerate more fields." This means that a + client MUST NOT crash or otherwise fail to parse the message or + other subsequent messages when there are more than three fields, and + that it SHOULD function at least as well when more fields are + provided as it does when it only gets the fields it accepts. The + most obvious way to do this is by ignoring additional fields; the + next-most-obvious way is to report additional fields verbatim to the + user, perhaps as part of an expert UI. + + * Adding a new possible value to a list of alternatives: + + For example, we might say "This field will be OPEN, CLOSED, or + CONNECTED. Clients MUST tolerate unexpected values." This means + that a client MUST NOT crash or otherwise fail to parse the message + or other subsequent when there are unexpected values, and that the + client SHOULD try to handle the rest of the message as well as it + can. The most obvious way to do this is by pretending that each + list of alternatives has an additional "unrecognized value" element, + and mapping any unrecognized values to that element; the + next-most-obvious way is to create a separate "unrecognized value" + element for each unrecognized value. + + Clients SHOULD NOT "tolerate" unrecognized alternatives by + pretending that the message containing them is absent. For example, + a stream closed for an unrecognized reason is nevertheless closed, + and should be reported as such. + 2. Message format
2.1. Description format @@ -244,7 +285,8 @@ information with events for this connection; see 4.1 for more information. NOTE: All events on a given connection will be provided in extended format, or none. - NOTE: "EXTENDED" is only supported in Tor 0.1.1.9-alpha or later. + NOTE: "EXTENDED" was first supported in Tor 0.1.1.9-alpha; it is + always-on in Tor 0.2.2.1-alpha and later.
Each event is described in more detail in Section 4.1.
@@ -472,8 +514,9 @@
"circuit-status" A series of lines as for a circuit status event. Each line is of - the form: - CircuitID SP CircStatus [SP Path] CRLF + the form described in section 4.1.1, omitting the initial + "650 CIRC ". Note that clients must be ready to accept additional + arguments as described in section 4.1.
"stream-status" A series of lines as for a stream status event. Each is of the form: @@ -1059,7 +1102,7 @@ S: 650 CIRC 1000 EXTENDED moria1,moria2 S: 250 ORPORT=0
- Clients MUST tolerate more arguments in an asynchonous reply than + Clients MUST tolerate more arguments in an asynchronous reply than expected, and MUST tolerate more lines in an asynchronous reply than expected. For instance, a client that expects a CIRC message like: 650 CIRC 1000 EXTENDED moria1,moria2 @@ -1068,13 +1111,26 @@ 650-EXTRAMAGIC=99 650 ANONYMITY=high
- If clients ask for extended events, then each event line as specified below - will be followed by additional extensions. Additional lines will be of the - form + If clients receives extended events (selected by USEFEATUERE + EXTENDED_EVENTS in Tor 0.1.2.2-alpha..Tor-0.2.1.x, and always-on in + Tor 0.2.2.x and later), then each event line as specified below may be + followed by additional arguments and additional lines. Additional + lines will be of the form: "650" ("-"/" ") KEYWORD ["=" ARGUMENTS] CRLF Additional arguments will be of the form SP KEYWORD ["=" ( QuotedString / * NonSpDquote ) ] - Such clients MUST tolerate lines with keywords they do not recognize. + + Clients MUST tolerate events with arguments and keywords they do not + recognize, and SHOULD process those events as if any unrecognized + arguments and keywords were not present. + + Clients SHOULD NOT depend on the order of keywords=value arguments, + and SHOULD NOT depend on there being no new keyword=value arguments + appearing between existing keyword=value arguments, though as of this + writing (Jun 2011) some do. Thus, extensions to this protocol should + add new keywords only after the existing keywords, until all + controllers have been fixed. At some point this "SHOULD NOT" might + become a "MUST NOT".
4.1.1. Circuit status changed
@@ -1158,7 +1214,6 @@ PRIVATE_ADDR (The client tried to connect to a private address like 127.0.0.1 or 10.0.0.1 over Tor.) [XXXX document more. -NM] -
The "REMOTE_REASON" field is provided only when we receive a RELAY_END cell, and only if extended events are enabled. It contains the actual