[tor-dev] Updates to Prop306: A Tor Implementation of IPv6 Happy Eyeballs
teor at riseup.net
Tue Dec 17 00:09:22 UTC 2019
> On 17 Dec 2019, at 09:37, Neel Chauhan <neel at neelc.org> wrote:
> Hi tor-dev@ mailing list,
> Sorry for the many-months delay in updating Prop306.
> I have updated Prop306, which is the IPv6 Happy Eyeballs proposal.
> The GitHub PR is here: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/98
> The Trac ticket is here: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/29801
> Some of the older discussion on Prop306 can be seen on the thread here: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2019-August/013959.html
> Could some of you please review this proposal?
Overall, I think the proposal is too complicated. It doesn't tell us what
changes are necessary, important, and optional. So it will be hard to
review and implement.
I have asked for these changes a few times now, but I can't see them in
your pull request:
> On 1 Aug 2019, at 10:36, teor <teor at riseup.net> wrote:
>> On 30 Jul 2019, at 03:11, Neel Chauhan <neel at neelc.org> wrote:
>> Just a reminder that this proposal (Prop306) needs to be reviewed: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/87
> I can't find these changes that I requested to the proposal:
>>> On 14 Jul 2019, at 02:47, teor <teor at riseup.net> wrote:
>>> I have some overall comments on the proposal:
>>> 1. The proposal is very large now. Let's add an intro section that splits the changes into:
> These parts of the proposal exist, but they are not in separate sections:
>>> * initial feasability testing (for initial developer review)
>>> * minimum viable product (for testing in Tor Browser Alpha)
>>> * parameter tuning (for performance, load, and user experience)
>>> * optional features, and how we will know if we need them (if users experience particular bugs)
> These parts of the proposal do not exist:
>>> * relay statistics (for ongoing monitoring)
> I don't see any deleted text:
>>> 3. Each revision of this proposal has added text. Is there any text that is redundant or not essential? Can we make it shorter?
> David suggested we delete one section, and I suggested we keep some of it, but delete most of it. ...
> Is there anything else you think we can delete?
How can we help you make these changes?
They are really important.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
More information about the tor-dev