#27690: Update bandwidth-file-spec with scaling methods
----------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juga | Owner: (none)
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: Medium | Milestone: sbws 1.0 (MVP must)
Component: Core Tor/Tor | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: tor-spec, tor-bwauth | Actual Points:
Parent ID: #27107 | Points:
Reviewer: | Sponsor:
----------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by teor):
Replying to [comment:3 juga]:
> Replying to [comment:2 teor]:
> > Replying to [comment:1 juga]:
> > > Maybe we should not include any scaling method, and instead create a
bandwidth scaling specification when we come out with an algorithm that is
tested enough we are happy with.
> >
> > We should delete the parts of the spec that we aren't going to
implement soon.
> >
> > > Otherwise, should we include/repeat Torflow scaling in this spec?
> >
> > Yes, because eventually we will delete the torflow repository and
spec.
Actually, that's not true - we will archive the repository in the "attic"
directory.
> > Also, torflow's scaling spec is hard to find, and it is buried in a
whole lot of other specs for code that is not used.
>
> Ok, i'll include Torflow scaling in the bandwidth-file-spec.
> If torflow repo and spec will be removed, we will lose the parts of
torflow that are not about scaling.
> By the time that would happen, maybe we should have an spec about how
the measurements are done *and* the scaling, both for torflow and sbws.
We won't archive the torflow repository until we have stopped using
torflow.
When we've stopped using torflow, we won't need a spec for how it works.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/27690#comment:4>
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
