Opened 7 years ago

Closed 7 years ago

#8094 closed defect (implemented)

Consensus methods 15 through 17 are undocumented

Reported by: karsten Owned by: nickm
Priority: Medium Milestone: Tor: 0.2.4.x-final
Component: Core Tor/Tor Version:
Severity: Keywords: tor-auth tor-spec
Cc: Actual Points:
Parent ID: Points:
Reviewer: Sponsor:

Description

Looks like dir auths recently started supporting consensus methods 15 and 16, but there's nothing in dir-spec.txt.

Child Tickets

Change History (10)

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by karsten

Here's what (I think) methods 15 and 16 do:

/** Lowest consensus method where microdescs may include a "p6" line. */
#define MIN_METHOD_FOR_P6_LINES 15

/** Lowest consensus method where microdescs may include an onion-key-ntor
 * line */
#define MIN_METHOD_FOR_NTOR_KEY 16

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by nickm

Keywords: spec added
Milestone: Tor: 0.2.4.x-final

Looks like dir auths recently started supporting consensus methods 15 and 16, but there's nothing in dir-spec.txt.

Remember the workflow for proposals becoming implemented: First the proposal is Accepted, then we implement it and it becomes Finished, and then we integrate it into the specification and the proposal becomes Closed. It is a consequence of this process that the specifications are only a complete description of the latest Tor when amended with all proposals currently in state Finished.

That said, I'm leaving this open as a reminder to integrate the above-mentioned proposals into the specification.

comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by nickm

Keywords: tor-spec added; spec removed

Bulk-replacing "spec" and "torspec" keywords with "tor-spec".

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by nickm

Owner: set to nickm
Status: newaccepted
Summary: Consensus methods 15 and 16 are undocumentedConsensus methods 15 through 17 are undocumented

16 is documented in the in-review branch "document-ntor" (see #8122). But 17 came into being. So, we should do that too.

comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by nickm

15 is part of ef5513b1ad3671153f20b3c3929e1acba1b873bc in branch "more-specs" in my public repository; see #7826.

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by nickm

Status: acceptedneeds_review

And method 17 is documented in 1c24c8fbdaa3fdb880d2d1ebb625e8569d89cca3 on branch "more-specs."

comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by rransom

Status: needs_reviewneeds_revision
+   The FLAGS value has one or more of the following bits set, where
+   "bit 1" is the LSB of the 32-bit value, and "bit 32" is the MSB.

Is FLAGS little-endian, big-endian, or middle-endian?

comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by nickm

Status: needs_revisionneeds_review

It looks like the statement "All numeric values are encoded in network (big-endian) order" in section 0.1 wasn't explicit enough in what it covered. I've tried to make it more clear in b0cf07d3d81, and to clarify this explicit case.

comment:9 Changed 7 years ago by nickm

*this particular case

comment:10 Changed 7 years ago by nickm

Resolution: implemented
Status: needs_reviewclosed

Merged it; thanks for the review!

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.