From d2bdb4ad257c699622942cd4fe76c758d4df3f55 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nick Mathewson Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:13:30 +0000 Subject: r16552@catbus: nickm | 2007-11-07 17:12:11 -0500 some notes on 0.2.0.10-alpha blockers. svn:r12426 --- doc/TODO | 13 ++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'doc') diff --git a/doc/TODO b/doc/TODO index 547a70a2df..0f9aec48e6 100644 --- a/doc/TODO +++ b/doc/TODO @@ -21,14 +21,21 @@ Items blocking 0.2.0.10-alpha: we picked it" and "is still adequate to be used as a guard even after we've picked it". We should write a real proposal for this -- in 0.2.1.x. + - Delay the separation of flags till 0.2.1.x. -NM + - Let's come up with a good formula for Guard. + - Should we ship with a fallback-consensus? Where in the tarball does it go? What's the process for choosing it? - We can, but we don't have to now. Stick it in place of the - empty fallback-consensus file in src/config if you like. - - To choose, just grab the most recent consensus you have. + empty fallback-consensus file in src/config if you like. -NM + - To choose, just grab the most recent consensus you have. -NM + - If 1.5*MaxCircuitDirtiness is more than KeepAlive, do we then send a KeepAlive and reset our timeout, thus never reaching 1.5*MCD? - - "When reporting clock skew, and we only have a lower bound on + - Aw, crud. We could keep track of how long it's been since + we last did anything _other_ than a keepalive, I guess. -NM + + o "When reporting clock skew, and we only have a lower bound on the amount of skew, amount anyway, marked as a lower bound. [XXX Nick: what does this mean??]" -- cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf