On 18 Jan (10:23:08), David Goulet wrote:
On 16 Jan (16:21:30), John Brooks wrote:
On Jan 16, 2016, at 4:52 AM, George Kadianakis desnacked@riseup.net wrote:
Yes, I think I agree with this evaluation for now. Seems prop246 is more complicated than we can handle, and we should probably postpone it, except if someone can analyze it well soon.
I agree. There are too many open questions with proposal 246 to plan on implementing it in the same timeframe as we’re working on proposal 224.
I suggest we change the proposal status to ‘Needs-Research’, and plan to gather all of these comments and make a real analysis of the tradeoffs at some later point.
I second that.
This thread outlines enough concerns to put this proposal back in research mode. Here is the commit torspec for that change. Please _NACK_ if you are unhappy with it else in a day or so I'll push this.
https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/dgoulet/torspec.git/commit/?h=prop246-res...
I got a ACK from asn yesterday and no NACK.
This proposal is officially back in "Need-Research" status and this email thread has been referenced in the proposal (like you can see in the commit above). See torspec master:
commit a4053594a34b141c5f05af54a7d15f1bf22952d9
Cheers! David
Cheers! David
- special
tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev