On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 02:28:03PM +1100, teor wrote: > > > On 31 Oct 2017, at 06:57, David Goulet <dgou...@ev0ke.net> wrote: > > > > * I believe now that we should seriously discuss the relevance of channels. > > Originally, the idea was good that is providing an abstraction layer for > > the > > relay to relay handshake and send/process cells related to the protocol. > > But, > > as of now, they are half doing it. > > > > There is an important cost in code and maintanance of something that is not > > properly implemented/finished (channel abstraction) and also something that > > is unused. An abstraction implemented only for one thing is not really > > useful > > except maybe to offer an example for others? But we aren't providing a good > > example right now imo... > > > > That being said, we can spend time fixing the channel subsystem, trying to > > turn it in a nicer interface, fixing all the issues I've described above > > (and > > I suspect there might be more) so the cell scheduler can play nicely with > > channels. Or, we could rip them off eliminating lots of code and reducing > > our > > technical debt. I would like us to think about what we want seriously > > because > > that channel subsystem is _complicated_ and very few of us fully > > understands > > it afaict. > > It depends what the goal of the channel layer is. > > Do we seriously think we will use another protocol in place of TLS?
The channel layer has certainly been used fruitfully in the past for experiments with other transports, such as UDP-based ones, QUIC-Tor, etc. I would be a little sad to see it disappear completely. -- Ian Goldberg Professor and University Research Chair Cheriton School of Computer Science University of Waterloo _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
