Opened 8 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

#5487 closed project (implemented)

Write an updated version of the Tor Design paper

Reported by: karsten Owned by: sjmurdoch
Priority: Medium Milestone:
Component: Metrics/Analysis Version:
Severity: Keywords: SponsorF20121101
Cc: arma, nickm, mikeperry Actual Points:
Parent ID: Points:
Reviewer: Sponsor:


From org/sponsors/SponsorF/Year2: "25. research: Write an updated version of the Tor Design paper to take into account all the changes to Tor since then. The idea would be to help researchers get started in understanding Tor, rather than have to read the source and a pile of research papers."

Last December, Steven told me that he's going to lead this deliverable and that he started working on a draft for a conference, but didn't make the deadline. He was pondering to submit the paper to the same conference but one year later and publish his draft as a preprint. Not sure if these plans have changed since December.

Can we aim for July with this deliverable instead of November? If so, what would be good substeps? How about aiming for an outline by April 30, a draft by May 31, and a preprint by June 30?

How sekrit do we have to be about publishing results from substeps or the end result before/while submitting the paper to a conference, taking into account a possible rejection and resubmission somewhere else?

Child Tickets

Change History (6)

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by karsten

Cc: arma nickm mikeperry added
Milestone: Sponsor F: July 1, 2012Sponsor F: November 1, 2012

Steven, Roger, Nick, and Mike discussed this deliverable yesterday in #tor-dev. Here's a rough schedule for completing this deliverable by November (not by July as originally planned):

  • July 1: Publish a top 10 Tor changes blog post.
  • (soon after July 1): Make an outline for the paper.
  • [...] (TBD soon after July 1)
  • November 1: Finish updated version of the Tor Design paper.

Cc'ing Roger, Nick, and Mike who all offered to help. (Does Paul have a Trac account? Can somebody who knows his Trac username cc him, too?)

comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by mikeperry

I think we should also future proof this somehow, considering we're about to change a whole lot of the Tor protocol for key size upgrades, tagging defenses, and a udp transport, and there's a whole lot more things we'd like to change if we just had the R&D resources (like distributed bandwidth and reliability measurements, others).

Perhaps we should include a "Top N likely future changes in Tor" blog post (and a corresponding Future Work section of the paper) so that this new design paper isn't totally obsolete a year or two after it's finished?

comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by cypherpunks

This is Paul. (To answer Karsten, no I don't have a Trac account. I will if I
must, but I figure it's just one more thing to keep track of and learn how to
use properly. I get virtually all the Trac updates in my mail and seem to remain
aware of the relevant ones. I find getting accounts and learning proper
committing/participating in new-to-me idioms a significant distraction from work,
but will do it if my not having one becomes an even larger inconvenience to others.)

Mike's suggestion is a good one, but also possibly a huge one. I can't see something
of publishable length that sets out the differences in design as things now are vs.
2003/4 plus future plans. At the time of the Tor design paper, we could just barely
cram all of that in a single paper. I think we know enough and have enough stuff
on the current and future plates that we should decide if we want to do the current
design description and motivation or something more like the design challenges paper
that was never published except as an NRL CHACS report. Even doing just one of those
threatens to be unwieldy large unless it's all at a very high level.

comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by arma

We should add the "separate streams" feature to the list -- it is increasingly looking like a big deal.

Steven, do you have an initial bullet-point list that we should build on? Or is that the first step?

comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by karsten

Keywords: SponsorF20121101 added
Milestone: Sponsor F: November 1, 2012

Switching from using milestones to keywords for sponsor deliverables. See #6365 for details.

comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by karsten

Resolution: implemented
Status: newclosed

We now have a draft of the updated Tor design paper here. This version is sufficient to meet the deliverable, but it's not final. Next steps will be to get something that's not only up to date on Tor, but also on Tor's plans (the future work section) and history (the experiences section) and the rest of the research field (the related works section). Those things should happen in another ticket, not as part of this project ticket. Closing. Thanks!

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.