On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 09:37:12 -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> I think the only change we'll need for this case is to add URLs for
> the microdescriptor consensus diffs.
Cool.
> This nice thing about this approach is that the client doesn't need to
> know whether the directory supports consensus
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 09:27:38 -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> One alternative in this case would be to include non-running relays in
> the consensus. This would make each individual consensus longer, but
> (if your guess is right) might make compressed diffs shorter.
That's an interesting idea.
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Daniel Martí wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Last week I introduced myself [0] on this list, shortly after being
> accepted into GSoC to work on Consensus Diffs. My GSoC proposal is
> heavily based on the Tor proposal #140 [1], which is close to being six
> years old n
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 10:02:30AM +0200, Daniel Martí wrote:
>> * Regarding their size, #140 suggests that they are not useful past 16
>> hours. I thought we could compare the compressed size of the diffs
>> when creating them, since t
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 10:02:30AM +0200, Daniel Martí wrote:
> * Regarding their size, #140 suggests that they are not useful past 16
> hours. I thought we could compare the compressed size of the diffs
> when creating them, since they may be of use for a longer time. We
> could do this rela
Hello everyone,
Last week I introduced myself [0] on this list, shortly after being
accepted into GSoC to work on Consensus Diffs. My GSoC proposal is
heavily based on the Tor proposal #140 [1], which is close to being six
years old now.
This is why, after some discussion with Nick, Sebastian and
