[tor-dev] Walking onions status update: week 3 notes
nickm at torproject.org
Fri Mar 20 19:38:20 UTC 2020
Walking Onions: week 3 update
On our current grant from the zcash foundation, I'm working on a
full specification for the Walking Onions design. I'm going to try to
send out these updates once a week.
My previous updates are linked below:
formats, preliminaries, git repositories, binary diffs,
metaformat decisions, and Merkle Tree trickery.
Specifying details of SNIP and ENDIVE formats, in CDDL.
You might like to check out those updates, and their references,
if this update doesn't make sense to you.
As you might recall, the SNIPs need to be nice and small, but they
need to be completely self-contained. The ENDIVE, on the other
hand, needs to be diff-friendly, and compressible. Relays need to
derive all the SNIPs from the ENDIVE. The ENDIVE and SNIP formats
that I worked on during last week [SNIPFMT] was designed to meet these
This week, I wrote up the algorithms to extract signed SNIPs from an
ENDIVE. This is in section 4 [RECONST] of the specs in my
work-in-progress repository [GITREPO] This was mainly straightforward
consequence from the work I did last week, but there were a few
things that turned up.
One trickier aspect of this work is that we want to move most of the
decision-making to the authorities, and have the relays simply do an
expansion algorithm. Updating all the relays would be slow, so relays
need to be able to handle new index types and data types without
fully understanding them. That means that we need to specify an
algorithm that can work flexibly with many future kinds of data.
Another tricky aspect is that the data which the relays need to put
into SNIPs all needs to be signed, so all of that data needs to come
out the same when relays calculate it as the when the authorities
calculate it. Thus, all the algorithms for building Merkle trees and
indices and SNIPRouterData bodies need to be deterministic.
I think that I got all of this relatively right in [RECONST], but
there are probably some mistakes hiding in there.
I'm hoping that there is a cleaner alternative to the weighted-index
reconstruction algorithm -- the one that's there right now puts a
lot of requirements on the input data, in order to avoid
After working on ENDIVE expansion, I moved on to the problem of
authorities voting. There's a lot of uncertainty here and decisions
I'll need to make.
The biggest decision is how the new voting process for ENDIVEs
should relate to the current voting process for consensus documents.
The choices seem to be:
* Have two processes with different kinds of votes.
* Expand the information that goes into current votes, and
generate ENDIVEs as a new kind of consensus from the current
* Design the ENDIVE voting process so that it can also be used to
generate current-style consensuses.
Using separate processes might be simplest, but it does carry risk
for duplicated code, and for the two voting processes reaching
divergent results. It would also be potentially bad if an authority
could vote differently in each process.
The second approach -- where ENDIVEs are another kind of consensus
generated from current-style voting documents -- has some charm to
it, but it perpetuates our current consensus-voting system, and
makes us specify a second encoding of CBOR objects as text, if we
want to vote on them meaningfully. This is a bit nasty, since the
standard-specified text encoding of cbor is not a bijection, and
doesn't mesh too well with our old directory format.
Therefore the third approach seems a little better to me now. In
it, we'd specify our votes as a CBOR-based format loosely based on
the current vote format, and describe a way to extract from them the
same data that is currently used for our voting algorithm. This
would let us encode CBOR within the document naturally, while not
having to throw away too much of our existing voting specification
and voting code.
I've got a few more ideas here, though I don't have any specs yet.
I've been collecting the ideas in a notes file [VNOTES] so I don't
While working on voting notes, I found some areas where the ENDIVE
and SNIP formats might be better.
First, I hadn't thought about authority certificates. Those should
go in, so that we can have the ENDIVE-signing keys be signed
themselves with the authorities' long-lived identities.
Second, there seem to be some opportunities for transmitting indices
in a simpler way. Instead of assigning a weight to each router
separately, for example, we could derive one weighted index from
another weighted index by re-weighting it, as we do with the
"bandwidth-weights" values in the current consensus.
Teor also made some good suggestions for improving the diff format;
I incorporated one and made a note to check the other.
I also spent a little while this week reading about BLS signatures,
since they are the leading candidate for how we might do threshold
Next week I'm going to try to get voting all specified. This will be
a pretty deep dive, since I will need to maintain some backward
compatibility with existing voting algorithms. There may be
opportunities for simplification, however.
More information about the tor-dev