Plan for proposal 104 (was: New system for modifying Tor protocol)

Nick Mathewson nickm at
Mon Apr 16 21:22:43 UTC 2007

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:18:21PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 02:51:40PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> > Looks plausible. Anything else we'll have to learn through trying to
> > build it rather than through thinking hard.
> I take it back. Here's another underspecified part:
> In section 3, it says "authorities receiving an extra-info
> document should verify..."
> What does it do if one of these properties is false? In particular,
> I am thinking about if the first or third property is false.
> Is the answer just "dump it" because we require the server to publish
> the descriptor right before publishing the extra_info?

I'm going with "dump it" If the server publishes wrong, that's the
server's problem.  The way I'm coding this up, we retain an extra-info
document for as long as we retain the corresponding router-info.

> Do we care if
> the two posts are in the same directory connection or different ones?


Assuming that this looks plausible to you, I'll make the right changes
to 104.

Nick Mathewson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 652 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the tor-dev mailing list