some proposal fixes, mostly cosmetic

Overview:

   This document provides an index to closed and open Tor proposals.

   This document provides an index to Tor proposals.

   This is an informational document.

099  Miscellaneous proposals [META]

100  Tor Unreliable Datagram Extension Proposal [DEAD]

101  Voting on the Tor Directory System [OPEN]

102  Droping "opt" from the directory format [CLOSED]

102  Dropping "opt" from the directory format [CLOSED]

103  Splitting identity key from regularly used signing key [OPEN]

104  Long and Short Router Descriptors [OPEN]

105  Version negotiation for the Tor protocol [OPEN]

   First, even at its most efficient, the old process would often have the

   spec out of sync with the code.  The worst cases were those where

   implementation was deferred: the spec and could stay out of sync for

   implementation was deferred: the spec and code could stay out of sync for

   versions at a time.

   Second, it was hard to participate in discussion, since you had to know

   remain the canonical documentation for the Tor protocol: no proposal is

   ever the canonical documentation for an implemented feature.

   {It's still okay to make mall changes to the spec if the code can be

   {It's still okay to make small changes to the spec if the code can be

   written more or less immediately, or cosmetic changes if no code change is

   required.  This document reflects the current developers' _intent_, not

   a permanent promise to always use this process in the future: we reserve

   the right to get really excited and run off and implement something in a

   caffeine-and-m&m-fueled all-night hacking session.}

   caffeine-or-m&m-fueled all-night hacking session.}

Proposal status:

   The body of the proposal should start with an Overview section explaining

   what the proposal's about, what it does, and about what state it's in.

   After the Overview, the proposal becomes more free-form.  Depending its

   After the Overview, the proposal becomes more free-form.  Depending on its

   the length and complexity, the proposal can break into sections as

   appropriate, or follow a short discursive format.  Every proposal should

   contain at least the following information before it can be "ACCEPTED",

   thought the information does not need to be in sections with these names.

   though the information does not need to be in sections with these names.

      Motivation: What problem is the proposal trying to solve?  Why does

        this problem matter?  If several approaches are possible, why take this

        Motivation and a Design, and wait for a specification until the

        Design seems approximately right.

      Security implications: What effects might the proposed changes have on

      Security implications: What effects the proposed changes might have on

        anonymity, how well understood these effects are, and so on.

      Specification: A detailed description of what needs to be added to the

      Compatibility: Will versions of Tor that follow the proposal be

        compatible with versions that do not?  If so, how will compatibility

        me achieved?  Generally, we try to not to drop compatibility if at

        all possible; we haven't made a "flag day" change since 2003 or

        earlier, and we don't want to do another one.  [XXX is this true?]

        be achieved?  Generally, we try to not drop compatibility if at

        all possible; we haven't made a "flag day" change since May 2004,

        and we don't want to do another one.

      Implementation: If the proposal will be tricky to implement in Tor's

        current architecture, the document can contain some discussion of how

  - Spec should incorporate some prose from tor-design to be more readable.

  - Spec when we should rotate which keys

  - We should use a variable-length path length by default -- 3 +/- some

    distribution. Need to think harder about allowing values less than 3,

    and there's a tradeoff between having a wide variance and performance.

Things that should change...

     doesn't grow with the number of hops, is not patented, and

     is implemented and maintained by smart people.

Let onion keys be not just RSA but maybe DH too. for the reply onion

Let onion keys be not just RSA but maybe DH too, for Paul's reply onion

design.

Filename: 100-tor-spec-udp.txt

Filename: 099-misc.txt

Title: Miscellaneous proposals

Version: $Revision$

Last-Modified: $Date$

Switching to UDP means managing the queues of incoming packets better,

so we don't miss packets. How does this interact with doing large public

key operations (handshakes) in the same thread?

key operations (handshakes) in the same thread? -RD

========================================================================

COMMENTS