Hi,
Looking at my flagged emails, I found that thread that seems
unfinished. Is it still relevant?
Cheers
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:12:44 +0100 intrigeri <intrigeri@???> wrote:
> hi,
>
> (Let's kill this old stalled discussion, and free some mental space
> of ours.)
>
> intrigeri wrote (24 Sep 2012 10:11:59 GMT) :
> > anonym wrote (06 Feb 2012 14:24:31 GMT) :
> >> [...] It turned out that if we want a long, stable Tor session with
> >> a time only handled by tordate (like when htpdate fails), then the
> >> only really safe thing to do is to *always*, no matter what, set
> >> the time to fresh-until.
> >> [...]
> >> **Conclusion:** The safest seems to be to set `V = N = W =
> >> fresh-until`, which effectively removes "*good enough* time" check
> >> -- no matter what, `tordate` should make sure a consensus is
> >> fetched and we should always set the time to its `fresh-until`, no
> >> more, no less.
>
> > More than seven months have passed, and nobody has taken the time to
> > verify this analysis theoretically, so I seriously doubt anyone will
> > ever do that. Therefore, I propose we implement anonym's proposal,
> > merge that into experimental, test it in extreme conditions, play
> > with it for a while, and see what happens.
>
> > In case we go this way, anonym, do you want to handle this?
>
> >> This problem is partially based on Tor's extreme sensitivity to
> >> clocks that are behind, for which a potential fix is discussed in
> >> the end of the analysis. If you agree with my analysis I'm gonna
> >> send a bug report with the relevant parts.
>
> > Well, I suggest you do send this bug report without waiting for
> > input from us any further. Tor developers will be much better than
> > us to review your suggestions. Sorry not to be that helpful, the
> > best I can do about that right now is: Be bold! :)
>
> Ping?
>
> Cheers,
