[tor-bugs] #25544 [Core Tor/Tor]: Complete vanguard specification

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#25544: Complete vanguard specification
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
 Reporter:  asn                                  |          Owner:  (none)
     Type:  defect                               |         Status:
                                                 |  needs_revision
 Priority:  Medium                               |      Milestone:  Tor:
                                                 |  0.3.4.x-final
Component:  Core Tor/Tor                         |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                               |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  tor-guard, torspec, guard-           |  Actual Points:
  discovery, 034-roadmap-master,                 |
  034-triage-20180328, 034-included-20180328     |
Parent ID:                                       |         Points:
 Reviewer:  asn                                  |        Sponsor:
                                                 |  SponsorV
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------

Comment (by mikeperry):

 Replying to [comment:8 asn]:
 > Mike, your changes look good to me.
 >
 > I pushed another commit on my github repo at `mesh-vanguards` with some
 more text on how the python script is used right now. If you think that's
 inappropriate for the proposal let me now.

 Seems good.

 > I think now is the time to decide what's the role of prop#247 and what's
 the role of `xxx-mesh-vanguards.txt`. I think it's confusing to let both
 of them live at the same time because they are pretty similar in terms of
 text. We should figure this out so that we get this merged in torspec.
 >
 > Should we let prop#247 be "Vanguard integration inside Tor core",
 whereas this new proposal is "Mesh vanguard design using external script"?
 And make both of them proper proposals (aka get a proposal number for this
 new one too). Or what should be the plan?

 I think that the final Tor implementation should match the vanguards repo
 behavior (and what this new proposal says), not 247. Because what proposal
 247 proposed is different enough than what we're doing in the vanguards
 repo (and what is specified in this proposal) that we should mark 247 as
 superseded by this one. It felt weird tossing aside the old 247 material
 entirely.

 I don't have a strong preference for this, but it seems natural to me.
 Argument against might be that we've been saying prop#247 everywhere, but
 I think as long as 247 as marked as superseded and mentions the new
 proposal, this is OK.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/25544#comment:9>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online