sarah
/
tor
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

update the todo, primarily with bridge-related stuff but 

also list some dirserv behaviors we should document


svn:r10606
This commit is contained in:
Roger Dingledine 2007-06-15 04:14:01 +00:00
parent 9f9ee13dc0
commit cfc6b4e074
1 changed files with 17 additions and 14 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

31
doc/TODO
View File

@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ N . Document transport and natdport
o In man page
- In a good HOWTO.
- Update dir-spec with decisions made on these issues:
Things we'd like to do in 0.2.0.x:
- Update dir-spec with decisions made on these issues:
o clients don't log as loudly when they receive them
o they don't count toward the 3-strikes rule
D But eventually, we give up after getting a lot of 503s.
@ -53,9 +53,11 @@ N . Document transport and natdport
D They can 503 client descriptor requests when they feel like it.
How can they distinguish? Not implemented for now, maybe
should abandon.
- update dir-spec with what we decided for each of these
- describe our 302 not modified behaviors.
- and document a bit more -- e.g. it looks like we return an empty
200 OK when somebody asks us for a networkstatus and we don't
have it?
Things we'd like to do in 0.2.0.x:
- Proposals:
. 101: Voting on the Tor Directory System (plus 103)
o Prepare ASAP for new voting formats
@ -210,15 +212,11 @@ Things we'd like to do in 0.2.0.x:
- Write a proposal
- Bridges users (rudimentary version)
o Ability to specify bridges manually
- cache of bridges that we've learned about and use but aren't
manually listed in the torrc.
D and some mechanism for specifying that we want to stop using
a given bridge in this cache.
. Config option 'UseBridges' that bridge users can turn on.
- uses bridges as first hop rather than entry guards.
D Do we want to maintain our own set of entryguards that we use
after the bridge? Open research question; let's say no for 0.2.0
unless we learn otherwise.
o Config option 'UseBridges' that bridge users can turn on.
o uses bridges as first hop rather than entry guards.
D Do we want to maintain our own set of entryguards that we use as
next hop after the bridge? Open research question; let's say no
for 0.2.0 unless we learn otherwise.
o if you don't have any routerinfos for your bridges, or you don't
like the ones you have, ask a new bridge for its server/authority.
. Ask all directory questions to bridge via BEGIN_DIR.
@ -226,9 +224,13 @@ Things we'd like to do in 0.2.0.x:
N - Design/implement the "local-status" or something like it, from the
"Descriptor purposes: how to tell them apart" section of
http://archives.seul.org/or/dev/May-2007/msg00008.html
- cache of bridges that we've learned about and use but aren't
manually listed in the torrc.
D and some mechanism for specifying that we want to stop using
a given bridge in this cache.
- timeout and retry schedules for fetching bridge descriptors
- give extend_info_t a router_purpose again
- react faster to download networkstatuses after the first bridge
o react faster to download networkstatuses after the first bridge
descriptor arrives
- be more robust to bridges being marked as down and leaving us
stranded without any known "running" bridges.
@ -238,6 +240,7 @@ N - Design/implement the "local-status" or something like it, from the
- Fix BEGIN_DIR so that you connect to bridge of which you only
know IP (and optionally fingerprint), and then use BEGIN_DIR to learn
more about it.
- look at server_mode() and decide if it always applies to bridges too.
- Bridges authorities (rudimentary version)
o Rudimentary "do not publish networkstatus" option for bridge
authorities.