On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 02:01:21 +, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:57:48AM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote:
> > With no per-stream window a single stalled stream would
> > block the circuit forever.
>
> Wait, what?
>
> Can you define 'stalled' here?
'Receiver of the stream does
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:57:48AM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote:
> With no per-stream window a single stalled stream would
> block the circuit forever.
Wait, what?
Can you define 'stalled' here? I think you are misunderstanding the
current (and proposed) design.
With no per-stream window, the circ
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:31:51 +, Roger Dingledine wrote:
...
> The circuit-level flow control, or something like it, is needed
> because different users are competing for the same resources. But the
> stream-level flow control has a different threat model, since all the
> streams belong
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 06:31:51PM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> 2. Design
>
> We should strip all aspects of this stream-level flow control from
> the Tor design and code.
See also https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/4485
wherein I point to a git branch that implements this pa
Filename: 213-remove-stream-sendmes.txt
Title: Remove stream-level sendmes from the design
Author: Roger Dingledine
Created: 4-Nov-2012
Status: Open
1. Motivation
Tor uses circuit-level sendme cells to handle congestion / flow
fairness at the circuit level, but it has a second stream-level
Matthew Finkel:
> On 11/02/2012 07:36 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>> Nick Mathewson:
>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, adrelanos wrote:
Could you blog it please?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to see more discussion from more people here first, and see
>>> whether somebody steps up to say, "
