On 8/4/12 1:45 AM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
Hi Norman,
On 8/3/12 9:42 PM, Norman Danner wrote:
If I understand the weights documents correctly, there is no one
consensus weight for a given router. What exactly is the ordering we
should use when the request asks to order by consensus weight?
I
Hi Norman,
On 8/3/12 9:42 PM, Norman Danner wrote:
> If I understand the weights documents correctly, there is no one
> consensus weight for a given router. What exactly is the ordering we
> should use when the request asks to order by consensus weight?
>
> It seems like determining the consensu
Hi Karsten,
On 8/3/12 3:33 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
At the moment, clients can only request ordering by consensus weight,
because that's the first and only thing we needed so far. In the
future, clients should be able to order by nickname, fingerprint,
address and maybe even the running bit
Hi Norman,
On 8/3/12 8:22 PM, Norman Danner wrote:
> A few questions on the Onionoo protocol specification:
>
> If multiple parameters are specified in the GET request, does that imply
> a logical and or a logical or (or something else)? E.g., suppose the
> GET request has type=relay and lookup=
Hi Karsten,
A few questions on the Onionoo protocol specification:
If multiple parameters are specified in the GET request, does that imply
a logical and or a logical or (or something else)? E.g., suppose the
GET request has type=relay and lookup=... . To me it seems like
that should re
