Identify proposals that need to change status.

We have a bunch of proposals in states that imply that they might someday be implemented. We should go through the list and see what we can move around.

added Next label

added Doing label and removed Next label

Okay, here is where I think we are. Please let me know about the ones where you disagree.

I believe this one is SUPERSEDED:

• 299-ip-failure-count.txt (superseded by 306-ipv6-happy-eyeballs.txt)

I think these should be RESERVE -- we don't have a plan to implement them right now, but there are futures in which we would want them:

• 188-bridge-guards.txt (see discussion at end of tor#7144)
• 262-rekey-circuits.txt
• 307-onionbalance-v3.txt

I think these are FINISHED -- the work is done and merged, and nothing is left but (possibly) a spec update:

• 282-remove-named-from-consensus.txt
• 301-dont-vote-on-package-fingerprints.txt
• 310-bandaid-on-guard-selection.txt
• 314-allow-markdown-proposals.txt

I think we should call these ACCEPTED -- we talked about them and we liked them:

• 275-md-published-time-is-silly.txt
• 285-utf-8.txt
• 311-relay-ipv6-reachability.txt
• 312-relay-auto-ipv6-addr.txt
• 313-relay-ipv6-stats.txt
• 318-limit-protovers.md

I think this one is DEAD -- @mikeperry has strong objections, and the benefits are small, and it won't help at all once walking onions is in place:

• 276-lower-bw-granularity.txt

I think this one is INFORMATIONAL -- it is a sketch for 323-walking-onions-full.txt:

• 300-walking-onions.txt

I think these can be called OPEN -- there's no reason for them to stay in their current draft status:

• 240-auth-cert-revocation.txt
• 303-protover-removal-policy.txt
• 308-counter-galois-onion.txt

Tricky cases:

• 288-privcount-with-shamir.txt is currently accepted, but we don't have a plan to build it. Maybe that's okay

I have no idea about these, but I suspect their current statuses might not be right:

• 201-bridge-v3-reqs-stats.txt
• 254-padding-negotiation.txt
• 273-exit-relay-pinning.txt
• 292-mesh-vanguards.txt
• 296-expose-bandwidth-files.txt
• 309-optimistic-socks-in-tor.txt
• 317-secure-dns-name-resolution.txt

added 3h of time spent at 2020-07-27

added Needs Review label and removed Doing label

317 is being discussed on tor#34004 (closed) and on tor-dev and will not be implemented in the way it is proposed right now.

Okay. 317 should be needs-revision then.

@ahf @asn @mikeperry @arma Please let me know if any of the above status changes are incorrect. Otherwise I'll move ahead with the easy ones later this week.

Proposal 254 is implemented/superceded by padding-spec.txt.

Proposal 292 is probably still Accepted? Not sure if we wanna call the vanguards addon the official implementation or not.

The rest I don't have opinions on.

I think the proposal changes suggested on #1 (comment 2696193) are right.

From the comments I also see the following: 317 -> NEEDS-REVISION 254 -> CLOSED (with padding-spec.txt becoming the new place) 292 -> ACCEPTED

I think we can let the rest of the tricky cases with the current state for now.

Great! I've updated the repository. You can see a nice summary over here.

Remaining proposals that I think may need a status change are:

• 201-bridge-v3-reqs-stats.txt (Open)
• 309-optimistic-socks-in-tor.txt (Draft)

@karsten, could you let me know where where are we with proposal 201? Did we ever build that?

@nickm, sorry for the late reply. No, we never built proposal 201, and I don't think we will do that in the near future. If we ever touch bridge statistics in the future (rather than build PrivCount), this proposal still makes sense. Can we change the proposal status to RESERVE?

ok; done!

added Doing label

removed Needs Review label

@tjr has okayed moving 309 to "Open" on IRC, so I've done that.

closed

mentioned in issue #109