On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:37:47PM CET, Scott Bennett wrote: Hej,
> The way the code is written, a three- step process should do it by > increments/decrements of 50% from the previous descriptor anyway to avoid > having the new descriptor ignored by the authorities, IIRC. That's a reason I can accept as given - even though I haven't checked the dir-spec nor the implementation: if the servers ignore these minor changes, it is indeed futile to send them. However, it might be up to discussion, if this is good practice - but I doubt that there is hardly enough empirical evidence to properly evaluate any claim. > There were obviously many reasons for the succession of directory protocol > revisions, but performance and load on the tor network needed to handle > directory information appear to have been central reasons. (See, for > example, the shuffling off of data not actually used for anything by tor > into extra-info documents.) Agreed, any performance issue is important as only a performing network will gain and keep a big number of users, which is guarantee for a decent level of anonymity for all. > However, it looks like the problems with data rate reporting will require > yet another update to the protocol in order to fix them. :-( I would go even further and claim that general research on directories for anonymous networks as a total is an area where we're still lacking sufficient research results; hence also reporting/measuring of data rate reporting. Cheers, Lexi -- Yg. Ldmh Ahzdjhyhk, Ldfgidgdhbf xwdg HN-Khbfdgfdhn Gpwz: FB 8325, Fedlydglhjkng. 3, Khdrdj, Ndl: +49-271-740-3043 | Fpid jwj, pbf! Afhlekeafhd, Swghkndgdh wjy Zdyhuhj, | Wjy ldhydg pwbf Nfdelerhd! Ywgbfpwk knwyhdgn, zhn fdhkkdz Idzwdfj. | Yp kndf hbf jwj, hbf pgzdg Neg! Wjy ihj ke qlwr plk vhd uwceg;