[tor-bugs] #6790 [Tor Directory Authority]: Write proposal draft for directory mirrors to accept, aggregate and hand off descriptors to dirauths

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#6790: Write proposal draft for directory mirrors to accept, aggregate and hand
off descriptors to dirauths
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
 Reporter:  mikeperry                          |          Owner:                    
     Type:  enhancement                        |         Status:  new               
 Priority:  normal                             |      Milestone:  Tor: 0.2.4.x-final
Component:  Tor Directory Authority            |        Version:                    
 Keywords:  MikePerry201210d, proposal-needed  |         Parent:  #2664             
   Points:                                     |   Actualpoints:                    
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Changes (by mikeperry):

  * keywords:  MikePerry201210, proposal-needed => MikePerry201210d,
               proposal-needed


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:13 nickm]:
 > I think that the right answer might be more roles then: not shoving
 functionality around among existing roles.
 >
 > IOW, directory authorities must currently:
 >   1. Receive descriptors that routers publish
 >   2. Test servers
 >   3. Vote
 >   4. Produce a consensus
 >   5. Let mirrors fetch that consensus and the (micro)descriptors that it
 refers to
 >   6. Let clients without a valid consensus bootstrap onto the network.

 There's also "7. Participate in the relay network." That is Sebastian's
 #3023.

 > Right now, we're seeing load problems from 6 and to a lesser extent 5.
 We hope to solve 6 with #572 or its successor.  We might also try to
 offload 2.  The functionality of 3 and 4 seems to be inherent in what
 directory authorities do.  Solving 5 does not currently seem to have a
 ticket.

 Can you explain more about 5 being unsolved? I haven't been following
 microdesc development. You mean the only way to get microdescriptors right
 now is from the dirauths directly?

 > If we got the directory authorities role down to only 4 and 5, that
 would let us actually have directory servers ''not be relays at all'',
 which would sure help with the load issues.

 Yes. This is what I'm going for. I actually want it to be possible to at
 least temporarily enter into a mode where the only responsibilities for
 the dirauths are 3, 4, and 5, and function in a backup capacity for 2, but
 only for relays not already in the consensus.

 > This ticket is about solving 1.  I'm actually loosely in favor of
 decoupling the role of "receive and sanity-check descriptors" from the
 rest of what authorities do, but I don't think it's as critical as
 figuring out how to offload 5 and 6.  I could chance my mind about that if
 data appears.

 Actually, I think the proposal would have to discuss roles 1 and 2
 together. I will try to do so in my draft.

 I think with #572 solving role 6, and #3023's goal of eliminating role 7,
 we're then down to my goal of a mode where the dirauths only participate
 in roles 3, 4 and 5, and sometimes 2.

 Thanks for helping to clarify the direction on this, Nick. The main reason
 I started this in a trac ticket as opposed to going straight to proposal
 phase was so that we could get assumptions and framing like this nailed
 down.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/6790#comment:14>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online