17.08.2014, 00:27 Sebastian Hahn: @Damian Johnson (to avoid sending two emails)
I wouldn't have worried either if I wouldn't have found it strange to see the notice for tor26. Please read on below. > thanks for looking after the network! The doctor is doing that for me. I just wanted to figure out if its diagnose is correct. Thank you for operating gabelmoo, thank you for your support, thank you for... > On 16 Aug 2014, at 22:56, Sebastian G. <bastik.tor> wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 19:46:15 +0000 (UTC) the doctor said: >>> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to maatuska was missing the following authority >>> signatures: tor26 >>> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to tor26 was missing the following authority >>> signatures: tor26 >>> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to urras was missing the following authority >>> signatures: tor26 >>> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to dizum was missing the following authority >>> signatures: tor26 >>> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to gabelmoo was missing the following authority >>> signatures: tor26 >>> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to moria1 was missing the following authority >>> signatures: tor26 >>> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to dannenberg was missing the following >>> authority signatures: tor26 >>> NOTICE: Consensus belonging to Faravahar was missing the following >>> authority signatures: tor26 >> >> If I understand this messages correctly tor26 didn't sign the consensus >> of any other authority. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) >> >> How is it possible that tor26 doesn't sign its own consensus? > > Here's an easy theory on what might have happened: When it was time to > vote, tor26 made a vote, and distributed it to the other dirauths. When > it was done doing so, it went offline. The other dirauths made a > consensus, and signed it. tor26 came back online, learned that there was > a consensus it didn't know about, fetched it from the other dirauths, > but didn't sign it - because the time to sign it was in the past. This > does not constitute an error condition for tor26, because enough other > dirauths signed it for it to be considered valid. That appears to be logical. This is also in line with what I believed to know about how the consensus is formed. It was indeed the wording of the notice line(s) that made me believe a consensus of an authority would somehow be bound to that authority. > I'd argue against increasing the complexity of the voting process to > handle this rare edge case. I do think maybe the wording is confusing: > What does "Consensus belonging to" mean? A consensus doesn't belong to > any individual dirauth. I don't have a quick suggestion for what to > name the notice instead, tho. Attention Damian Johnson ;) How about "Consensus fetched from ..." or "Consensus downloaded from..."? (If that requires discussion I happily open a ticket) I don't see any benefit (at first glance) to change (and most likely increase complexity) the voting/signing process. Especially since the consensus is valid and it is expected to be fetchable from any authority. >> A similar message was send on the 15th for gabelmoo, but gabelmoo had no >> notice line. There were two warning, first gabelmoo did not publish a >> fresh consensus and secondly it did not report bandwidth scanner >> results. Nothing I would have worried about. Nor would I have found strange. > > Yes, gabelmoo was down as I was fixing its bw auth. Nothing to worry > about indeed. > >> However an authority handing out a consensus it didn't sign might be >> something that isn't quite right. > > I think it's OK, considering the above. When it is what it appears to be then I agree. Thank you both for your replies- > Cheers > Sebastian Sebastian G. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
