#25999: Build an abstraction layer over different consensus flavours ---------------------------+----------------------------------- Reporter: teor | Owner: atagar Type: enhancement | Status: needs_information Priority: Medium | Milestone: Component: Core Tor/Stem | Version: Severity: Normal | Resolution: Keywords: descriptor | Actual Points: Parent ID: | Points: Reviewer: | Sponsor: ---------------------------+-----------------------------------
Comment (by teor): Replying to [comment:5 atagar]: > > I might have missed a document type or two, but I can't see any we could remove or even combine. > > At the end of the day data comes from three sources... > > * From relays via a server descriptor. > * From relays via an extrainfo descriptor. > * From authorities via the router status entry (ex. flags, bwauth measurements, etc). > > Microdescriptors are nothing more than a distillation of the server descriptor so downloads are smaller. Unless I'm missing something there's no reason anyone beside tor itself should care about those. > > The thing I think we *can* simplify is the consensus. I'm at a loss for a reason to have both a standard and microdescriptor consensus. Maybe the split's for historical backward compatibility? > > > ns (original) consensus flavour - a comprehensive consensus, used by old clients, and for detailed analysis by tools and people > > That's what I'm unsure about. Microdescriptors were added enough years ago that we likely already cut them out of the network. No, relays on 0.2.8 and earlier use descriptors for their circuits, and there are still a few of them around (even though they are unsupported, they still work). So do some really old clients, which at the very least will need a consensus substitute to avoid misbehaving and bringing down the network: https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/266-removing- current-obsolete-clients.txt Also, Torflow and now sbws depend on the ns consensus. I bet Onionoo, depictor, and doctor would also fail if we got rid of the ns consensus. If we want to migrate away from it, that's a lot of work. > As for analysis, the microdescriptor consensus and server descriptors have the same data. > > > Ok, that would be very helpful. > > Do we have anyone eager to use such a class? It would be sad to implement such a thing only to see it go unused. ;) If it was available, sbws would have used it. If it was available, we could more easily migrate sbws, depictor and doctor away from using ns consensuses. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/25999#comment:6> Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/> The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________ tor-bugs mailing list tor-bugs@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs