#28598: Should torflow scaling use the consensus bandwidth when it is measured? ------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: juga | Owner: (none) Type: defect | Status: needs_revision Priority: Medium | Milestone: sbws: | 1.0.x-final Component: Core Tor/sbws | Version: Severity: Normal | Resolution: Keywords: sbws-1.0-must-moved-20181128 | Actual Points: Parent ID: #28588 | Points: Reviewer: teor | Sponsor: ------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Comment (by teor): I did some more review on the pull request. We can't leave the names for #28684, because: * #28684 might take a long time, and * this patch adds keys to the bandwidth file. Changing keys in the bandwidth file is a breaking change. Here's what I think: In sbws, "bw" means "The measured bandwidth of this relay." (for the next vote). https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/bandwidth-file-spec.txt So we can't use "bandwidth" like stem does. Here's what I suggest: * cons_bw: the bandwidth of this relay in the consensus * cons_bw_is_unmeasured: is this relay is unmeasured in the consensus? -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28598#comment:11> 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