After another look at the spec, I still believe the descriptor I'm publishing conforms, as was my intention. Sorry to have caused all these problems :(
Heads up that there's another (nascent) tor relay implementation in the works. I reached out to them to see if they were interested in collaborating, but I didn't get a response. It's unclear to me what their plans are. However Filippo Valsorda has a strong reputation so it's worth keeping an eye on. Mike On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Karsten Loesing <kars...@torproject.org> wrote: > On 2017-10-26 00:09, teor wrote: > > On 26 Oct 2017, at 06:58, Michael McLoughlin <mmclough...@gmail.com > > <mailto:mmclough...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> I can easily change the descriptor if necessary? > > > > As long as it conforms to the spec, it's fine. > > Agreed. FWIW, the descriptor published by this relay confused Metrics > quite a bit. But that's okay, we'll just make Metrics more robust. The > good news is that we didn't lose any data in the process. > > > We should really fuzz descriptor parsers better. > > But that's not an appropriate thing to do on the live network, and some > > parser code only runs on descriptors on the live network. > > If somebody wants to generate a bunch of fuzzed descriptors that conform > to the spec, I'll happily throw them into a local Metrics instance to > see if anything else breaks. I could imagine that Damian would do the > same with stem and Philipp with zoossh. > > All the best, > Karsten > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > >
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
