From 7210fc2c7c8a6fa6ba06a95053f367a63cd4bb19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sebastian Hahn Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 03:15:54 +0200 Subject: spelling fixes for proposals --- proposals/158-microdescriptors.txt | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'proposals/158-microdescriptors.txt') diff --git a/proposals/158-microdescriptors.txt b/proposals/158-microdescriptors.txt index 59c14c3..c8a3542 100644 --- a/proposals/158-microdescriptors.txt +++ b/proposals/158-microdescriptors.txt @@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ Status: Open A microdescriptor should in every case be a pure function of the router descriptor and the conensus method. - In votes, need to include the hash of each expected microdescriptor in - the routerstatus section. I suggest a new "m" line for each stanza, + In votes, we need to include the hash of each expected microdescriptor + in the routerstatus section. I suggest a new "m" line for each stanza, with the base64 of the SHA256 hash of the router's microdescriptor. For every consensus method that an authority supports, it includes a @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ Status: Open 3.1.2. Computing consensus for microdescriptor-elements and "m" lines - When we generating a consensus, we use whichever m line + When we are generating a consensus, we use whichever m line unambiguously corresponds to the descriptor digest that will be included in the consensus. (If there are multiple m lines for that descriptor digest, we use whichever is most common. If they are @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ Status: Open This flavor can safely omit descriptor digests. - We still need to descide whether to move ports into microdescriptors + We still need to decide whether to move ports into microdescriptors or not. In either case, they can be removed from the current "ns" flavor of consensus, since no current clients use them, and they take up about 5% of the compressed consensus. -- cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf