Missed a link from my last email: https://github.com/go-tor/gotor
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Michael McLoughlin mmcloughlin@gmail.com wrote:
After another look at the spec, I still believe the descriptor I'm publishing conforms, as was my intention. Sorry to have caused all these problems :(
Heads up that there's another (nascent) tor relay implementation in the works. I reached out to them to see if they were interested in collaborating, but I didn't get a response. It's unclear to me what their plans are. However Filippo Valsorda has a strong reputation so it's worth keeping an eye on.
Mike
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Karsten Loesing karsten@torproject.org wrote:
On 2017-10-26 00:09, teor wrote:
On 26 Oct 2017, at 06:58, Michael McLoughlin <mmcloughlin@gmail.com mailto:mmcloughlin@gmail.com> wrote:
I can easily change the descriptor if necessary?
As long as it conforms to the spec, it's fine.
Agreed. FWIW, the descriptor published by this relay confused Metrics quite a bit. But that's okay, we'll just make Metrics more robust. The good news is that we didn't lose any data in the process.
We should really fuzz descriptor parsers better. But that's not an appropriate thing to do on the live network, and some parser code only runs on descriptors on the live network.
If somebody wants to generate a bunch of fuzzed descriptors that conform to the spec, I'll happily throw them into a local Metrics instance to see if anything else breaks. I could imagine that Damian would do the same with stem and Philipp with zoossh.
All the best, Karsten
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays