On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:09:36AM -0400, David Goulet wrote: > On 01 Nov (07:31:50), Ian Goldberg wrote: > > 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. > > So after Montreal meeting, I got access to QUIC-Tor code. And, as a > misconception of channels, they aren't about "transport" but "protocol". > > Thus the QUIC-Tor code didn't even *touch* channels ;). Everything they did > had to be done mostly at the connection layer. > > For some reasearch to experiement with channels, it would be basically a > research based on _removing_ TLS between relays. I'm not aware of such a thing > right now but I'm sure someone did poked at it for sure!
Ah, bad example I guess. But some of my work in the past certainly has used channels for this purpose. _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
