from today's measurement meeting:
> 15:00:20 karsten: I've decided I'm going to fix the definition of
> median
> 15:00:26 in the tor sourcecode
> 15:00:36 virgil: is it broken?
> 15:00:53 or just not specified as clearly as it should be?
> 15:01:01 for ordered list {a,b,c,d}, it returns b in
Alright, now sending the list to CC and directly emailing the team.
Notes from today about this and 0.2.7 freeze.
For sponsor deliverables / please add your name on the 'who can do it'
column if you can pick up a task. We will be checking this spreadsheet
on our meetings till the sponsors deadlin
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Alec Muffett wrote:
> Aside: in pursuit of helping Jake register “.onion” as a "special name” in
> an RFC, I am currently being beaten-up on the IETF discussion mail-list
> regards the potential future length of onion addresses, and that they may
> possibly exceed
Aside: in pursuit of helping Jake register “.onion” as a "special name” in an
RFC, I am currently being beaten-up on the IETF discussion mail-list regards
the potential future length of onion addresses, and that they may possibly
exceed the bounds of DNS’ maximum label length of 63 characters:
I looked into this.
Apparently Tor often uses the "low median", in cases where it needs to be a
middle value, but an inbetween value is not allowed. This is chiefly for
voting.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:49 PM Andreas Krey wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:44:48 +, Virgil Griffith wrote:
> >
