On 26 Aug 2017, at 08:30, nusenu nusenu-lists@riseup.net wrote:
use ContactInfo as a way to collect the intention of relay operators to opt-in/opt-out of the fallback directory mirrors list.
This is a good idea, *if* we still think an opt-in is necessary.
It seems that fallbacks are widely accepted by relay operators. I've never had any fallback operator complain about the extra load. (Or anything else, for that matter.) And consensus diffs will make for even *less* load in future.
So I can't see any reasons to keep running opt-ins.
But it does cut out the conversation about keeping relay details the same. I wonder how much this helps fallback operators, and if we should keep it. Regardless of my level of opt-in effort, we still lose around 10% of relays on the list every 6 months. (Which is about the rate we expected, so we designed Tor to cope well with 20% loss.)
If someone else wants to run the opt-in machinery: emails, conversations, and relay lists; I'm happy to support it. And I'm happy to support any process redesign.
But if no-one wants to do the opt-in or implement the redesign, I'd like to try running opt-out for a while, and see if we get a similar failure rate.
So let's try for a process that's as simple as possible, but still achieves the redundancy we want.
This comes at the price of increasing the descriptor size, but (temporary) 5 chars might be ok? You can probably reduce it to 3 chars if 5 is to much.
I wouldn't worry about descriptor size: compression and microdescriptors will take care of the extra bytes.
T
-- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)
teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------