13:30:56 <nickm> #startmeeting 13:30:56 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed Apr 1 13:30:56 2015 UTC. The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:30:56 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 13:30:57 <dgoulet> and I think we should mention somewhere why we don't close it righ away else in 6 months we are going to ask ourself why the hell we don't close it right away? 13:31:01 <nickm> hi all! Who's here for the meeting today? 13:31:06 <nickm> dgoulet: yes comments are good 13:31:07 <Yawning> \o/ 13:31:14 <dgoulet> hello meeting! 13:31:31 <isabela> oi 13:31:35 <nickm> io 13:31:48 <nickm> once more it is wednesday 13:31:51 <nickm> also it is a new month 13:32:07 <nickm> let's start with brief status updates, then talk about whatever we're talking about? 13:32:10 <nickm> I'll begin 13:32:44 <nickm> I've been scrambling to get end-of-month sponsor-S stuff done, and trying to pay attention to HS issues, and generally running in little circles. I hope I can get things done more thoughtfully soon. 13:32:55 <asn> (hello) 13:33:10 <nickm> I got most of the sponsor S deliverables done to my satisfaction. I have the remainder done to a reasonable standard, though I want to work on them a little more today if I can 13:33:13 <nickm> (hi asn) 13:33:16 <nickm> who will go next? 13:33:27 <Yawning> I'll go 13:33:40 <Yawning> I wrote a bunch of pt related tor patches 13:34:01 <Yawning> to try to clean up the termination detection 13:34:09 <Yawning> then HSes caught on fire 13:34:20 <Yawning> so I wrote some patches for that 13:34:36 <Yawning> also reviewed the "upload a HS descriptor through the control port" patch 13:34:51 <nickm> are any of the patches from the review circle done-ish? 13:34:53 <Yawning> and unrelated, fixed torsocks so stuff that I use works 13:35:06 <dgoulet> nickm: yeah 2 of them 13:35:11 <Yawning> I belive dgoulet's and mine are ready for higher review 13:35:16 <dgoulet> nickm: #6411 and #14847 13:35:38 <nickm> ok 13:35:44 <Yawning> both of us were going to look at the ed key stuff, but both of us are looking at this HS thing I think 13:35:47 <nickm> could you tag them with nickm-review ? 13:36:03 <asn> (posting https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/asn/tor.git/log/?h=bug15515_2 on #15515) 13:36:05 <Yawning> sure I'll tag mine 13:36:21 <dgoulet> nickm: sure 13:36:40 <Yawning> the pt stuff I did should be ready for review as well, but it's trivial and non-urgent 13:36:52 <nickm> cool 13:37:09 <nickm> looks like I'm going to be reading a bunch of code today :) 13:37:13 <Yawning> and I still need to document the "we keep stdin open" thing in the pt spec 13:38:05 <Yawning> next? 13:38:10 * dgoulet can go 13:38:10 <asn> hello 13:38:17 <asn> i mainly worked on sponsorr 13:38:24 <asn> and crowdfunding 13:38:37 <asn> but the past 2 days i've been fighting with #15463 13:38:42 <Yawning> (and then HSes caught on fire) 13:38:51 <asn> i have tried to summarize the situation on the ticket so far. 13:38:52 <dgoulet> yeah that one, team HS is on it! :D 13:38:59 <Yawning> (I suspect this ill be a trend) 13:39:11 <asn> i just submitted a patch for #15515 which might solve evrything but will probably solve nothing. 13:39:20 <asn> i'm hoping to discuss this issue today on the HS meeting? 13:39:29 <dgoulet> +1 13:39:30 <asn> and that's that. thanks :) 13:39:42 * dgoulet ready to do 13:39:43 <Yawning> it raises the bar required I think, but stuff like lolbotnets would still cause us issues 13:40:52 <Yawning> so what was dgoulet up to? 13:40:53 <dgoulet> SponsorR, mostly with HS descriptor timeline that brought "fixes/answers" for #13483 and #12500, the HS fire ^ , some review here and there, one "medium" on DonnchaC_ patch, that's about it 13:41:23 <Yawning> I think DonnchaC's patch is probably review ready 13:41:48 <Yawning> I could look over it again, but my reviewing portions of that isn't a good idea 13:41:53 <Yawning> anymore 13:42:07 <dgoulet> Yawning: it's in need_review yeah so it needs "acK" 13:42:21 <Yawning> because part of my initial review was provided in a "here is a diff" form 13:42:32 <Yawning> so someone not-me should ack it I think 13:42:49 <dgoulet> Yawning: on my list 13:42:54 <Yawning> <3 13:42:54 * armadev notices a tor meeting (so early!) 13:43:04 <dgoulet> armadev: used to be an hour earlier :P 13:43:20 <Yawning> is that all the peeps here for this? 13:43:34 <Yawning> (and shoul dwe go back to talking about how we need to fix our hs stuff mroe?) 13:43:35 <dgoulet> think so 13:43:58 <dgoulet> Yawning: should we keep the HS stuff for the hs meeting else we won't have anything to talk about :P 13:44:41 <dgoulet> oh forgot isabela that is silently observing us! :) 13:44:47 <Yawning> well, I think some of the hs stuff changes the priority on some of our 0.2.7.x stuff 13:44:56 <dgoulet> true 13:45:40 <nickm> it would be nice to finish 0.2.7 triage soon. Has anybody besides me nominated tickets for deferral/inclusion on the spreadsheet? 13:45:49 <nickm> (does anybody else have an update?) 13:46:09 <dgoulet> oh ah! forgot about the triage nomination, damn :( 13:46:10 <Yawning> I looked at it and thought it was ok a week or so ago? 13:46:59 <nickm> ok. so the idea is that there are two lists: sponsored and non-sponsored. By default, everything *not* greyed out in the first list will happen, and nothing in the 2nd list will happen 13:47:20 <nickm> if there's something on the first list that's greyed out, or something on the second list, and you think it should happen, mark it as a nomination. 13:47:21 <Yawning> can we relink the sheet? 13:47:36 <nickm> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H_kAcQQ-NpGpKWG9RlF3w-NhruKKE9EZJcRaXBQGVy8/edit#gid=499528971 13:47:40 <Yawning> <3 13:48:05 <nickm> If there's something that _is_ planned to happen, and you think we shouldn't give it so much priority, or we can trivially afford to defer it, mark it in red or yellow 13:48:14 <nickm> (mark by adding your initials or handle) 13:48:17 <nickm> makes sense? 13:48:41 <dgoulet> nickm: your "nm" in green for non gray stuff is basically "Nick wants that in 0.2.7" ? 13:48:48 <dgoulet> (asking because no legend for green :) 13:49:08 <nickm> yeah 13:49:29 <Yawning> how do we nominate gray stuff? 13:49:32 <nickm> add 13:49:43 <nickm> add your initials in green to the who-nominates column 13:49:54 <nickm> try to put more negative nominations than positive 13:50:45 <asn> "Count unique IPs in an anonymous way" we doing this? i thought that the paper we liked had certain flows. 13:51:08 <nickm> I don't agree. 13:51:13 <asn> ok then. 13:51:20 <asn> i have not read the paper, i just skimmed over the thread 13:51:22 <nickm> or at the very least, I don't believe the papers *I* liked had the same flaws.... 13:51:25 <asn> ok 13:51:48 <nickm> Also IMO even if all the flaws are real, it's still an improvement on status quo ante 13:52:28 <nickm> oh, quick straw poll while we're all here... anybody think we shouldn't remove --digests? 13:52:29 <asn> unclear if we will be able to do "Raise our guard rotation period, if appropriate" in 0.2.7 13:52:39 <nickm> we should certainly work on it though, yes? 13:52:46 * armadev votes to ditch --digests 13:52:57 <asn> since it depends on whether we will fix the guard discovery attacks for hses. 13:53:02 <armadev> i find this spreadsheet complicated, alas 13:53:08 <asn> (#9001) 13:53:10 <armadev> i think it might be tor browser can't display it well 13:55:27 <asn> ah ok #9001 is also in the list. so i guess tha'ts fine. 13:56:04 <armadev> oh, while we have developers here. what do ya'll think of my ticket8766 branch? https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/8766#comment:5 13:57:02 <asn> haha "Rumors that hidden services have trouble scaling to 100 concurrent connections" 13:57:09 <dgoulet> :) 13:57:25 <armadev> asn: actually that ticket meant 100 connections open at the same time. 13:57:28 <dgoulet> FYI, my HS worked perfectly fine for that ^ 13:57:29 <armadev> not 100 connection attempts at the same time. 13:57:36 <asn> yep 13:57:55 <nickm> armadev: I think it is probably not a complete solution? 13:58:03 <nickm> armadev: not sure whether it's secretly messing something up 13:58:08 <asn> nickm: tickets on the first group look reasonable for 0.2.7. in the sense that nothing SUPER BIG is in there, and they are all quite important. 13:58:09 <nickm> also there are more timers in any places in the code 13:58:10 <armadev> nickm: correct, but it did fix actual behavior for me. 13:58:18 <asn> nickm: unclear if we will be able to pull it off for august or september. 13:58:28 <armadev> nickm: so right now it would improve the lives of tails users 13:58:35 <nickm> armadev: see also #3199 13:58:41 <nickm> armadev: you can nominate it if you want? 13:58:57 <nickm> I just did on your behalf 13:59:10 <armadev> thanks 13:59:13 <Yawning> #13737 bing gray makes me really sad 13:59:23 <nickm> so nominate it 13:59:28 <nickm> that's what we're trying to do here 13:59:33 <dgoulet> Yawning: nominate! 13:59:34 <nickm> identify grey things that shouldn't be 13:59:45 <Yawning> did 13:59:50 <nickm> woo 13:59:53 <isabela> hehe 14:00:04 <nickm> remember to also find included things that shouldnt' be. 14:00:07 <dgoulet> 35%+ for HS is crypto in the profiling of the attack so I think the intro circuit in worker is a NOMINATE contender :) 14:00:29 <nickm> (if we nominate more stuff and don't make time to do it, we might as well not nominate it) 14:00:38 <Yawning> ^ 14:00:43 <nickm> also remembver that the ENTIRE second group is defer-by-default 14:00:48 <dgoulet> asn: you added your name but no color, you want them out or in or ? 14:00:49 <nickm> IIUC 14:00:55 <Yawning> it's in response to "oh hey, fmonty" 14:02:16 <asn> dgoulet: it was more like "asn can probably do this for 0.2.7". should I green it? 14:02:25 <nickm> "can" and "wants to"? 14:02:28 <nickm> if so please green it 14:02:29 <asn> yes 14:02:32 <nickm> and find other stuff to yellow/red :) 14:03:13 <Yawning> red = no, yellow = meh? 14:03:16 <nickm> A thought: What if I make an 0.2.7-reach milestone, where deferrable stuff that we don't actually want to defer on goes? 14:03:41 <nickm> Yawning: red = "I say this is a waste of time and not worth doing." yellow = "harmless to defer" 14:03:44 <nickm> imo 14:04:05 <Yawning> k 14:04:36 <asn> so "Implement Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses" which is greyd out and has nickm and yawning as nominator, means what? 14:05:05 <Yawning> I put my name there cuz I think it's important 14:05:16 <asn> but it's greyd out because it's not going to happen for 0.2.7? 14:05:39 <asn> isabela: ^? 14:05:40 <nickm> it means it won't happen unless we decide to do it 14:05:46 <asn> ok 14:05:49 <isabela> yes 14:06:05 <nickm> THe way that stuff got assigned grey was, if it had high estimated effort to priority ratio, it got greyed with no further consideration. 14:06:12 <nickm> but that's a rough thing 14:06:21 <armadev> nickm: realistically, there's a huge amount of stuff here already. any reach milestone will get skipped wholesale. but still maybe useful if it lets us part with things more amicably. 14:06:23 <nickm> so we're refining it 14:06:33 <nickm> armadev: i think psychologically yeah 14:06:51 <nickm> isabela: what do you think about an 0.2.7-reach milestone? 14:06:53 <armadev> "i'm not breaking up with you, i'm just putting you in the -reach component" 14:07:43 <isabela> hmm 14:08:02 <isabela> ok,you mean we would have 0.2.7 and 0.2.7-reach? 14:08:09 <nickm> yeah 14:08:16 <isabela> I prefer not :) 14:08:19 <nickm> ok. then no 14:08:38 <isabela> that is other ways we can organize these tickets so we know we once looked at them and considered them for 0.2.7 14:09:06 <isabela> I am also writing a proposal to reorg trac which will include to change how we are using milestones (but that is topic for another convo) 14:09:38 <nickm> ok 14:09:42 <isabela> After today I plan on reflecting this spreadsheet on trac 14:09:53 <nickm> woo 14:10:22 <isabela> and will make sure that things that were not in group1 gets tagged in a way we can recognize them 14:10:23 <asn> is andrea playing? 14:10:39 <nickm> I've pinged her; her sleep schedule may be messing with her again 14:10:59 <nickm> isabela: +1. Do you know how to use trac's bulk-modification interface? (And did we remember to give you access to it?) 14:11:04 <dgoulet> I'm relunctant on putting my name in green on non gray stuff.... I've already have much on my plate lol 14:11:10 <nickm> You shouldn't ahve to tag 100 tickets one by one. 14:11:11 <armadev> i hope i made isabela a trac goddess 14:11:13 <isabela> nickm: I am admi on trac :) 14:11:16 <armadev> yep 14:11:16 <nickm> lovely 14:11:17 <isabela> *admin 14:12:10 <isabela> <3 bulk modification 14:12:37 <isabela> !!! coffee is ready brb 14:14:19 <isabela> ok 14:14:47 <asn> i find it hard to commit to more non-obvious tasks. 14:14:57 <dgoulet> ^ 14:15:04 <asn> especially with my exams coming up, it's hard to schedule for months ahead. 14:15:19 <nickm> this isn't so much "I promise I will do this", but instead "I believe this is important enough that we should do it." 14:15:30 <isabela> yes 14:15:39 <nickm> but of course if you can't imagine doing it yourself, maybe that is a factor 14:16:00 <dgoulet> oh ah! it's not a "takw ownership" but a vote that we must do it... ok I got it wrong then 14:16:06 <dgoulet> (for green) 14:16:08 <isabela> ok 14:16:11 <isabela> lots of yellow 14:16:39 <nickm> I wonder if we should look over all the yellow and see if we disagree about yellowing it 14:16:55 <isabela> yes 14:17:09 <isabela> that would be good - if ppl are done we could do that 14:17:26 <asn> ok 14:17:57 <isabela> I can start naming the rows (top-down) and you guys comment on it? 14:18:08 <dgoulet> go 14:18:10 <isabela> row 26 -> nickm 14:18:37 <nickm> worth doing IMO, but less important than other worker stuff. I bet others do want it 14:18:46 <Yawning> probably ok, curve25519 is a bigger problem 14:18:47 <isabela> ok 14:19:01 <dgoulet> fine with me, I want it but can slip down a bit in priority 14:19:11 <nickm> +1 to what dgoulet said 14:19:14 <isabela> yeah that is what I would suggest 14:19:17 <Yawning> +1 14:19:24 <isabela> normal is ok? 14:19:44 <nickm> hm? yes 14:19:47 <dgoulet> yes 14:19:50 <isabela> cool 14:20:03 <isabela> row 39 -> dgoulet 14:20:10 <dgoulet> so since #15254 is off 14:20:18 <dgoulet> row 39 is a bit useless 14:20:30 <isabela> ok 14:20:34 <asn> i can also do row 38 14:20:44 <asn> in the sense that it's a bug i intorduced so it's easier for me to fix it. 14:20:59 <asn> here let me add my nick 14:21:03 <nickm> ok 14:21:17 <asn> iirc the fix was quite easy. 14:21:46 <isabela> asn: you just want to assign it to you right? 14:21:59 <asn> i guess so 14:22:22 <isabela> ok then I will remove the yellow name :) otherwise I will get confuse later 14:22:41 <isabela> ok dgoulet that is reasonable reason to remove it 14:22:45 <isabela> everyone cool with it? 14:22:56 <asn> yes 14:22:57 <armadev> we are about to freeze this list as-is? 14:23:12 <isabela> nickm: I removed your yellow from before as well, since we dicided on keeping it as lower priority 14:23:35 <dgoulet> isabela: yes we can un-gray it 14:23:44 <dgoulet> there 14:23:48 <isabela> armadev: is hard to ever freeze 14:23:53 <isabela> dgoulet: tx 14:24:03 <isabela> asn: row 41 14:24:38 <nickm> asn: Huh. If you think that's not worthwhile, maybe we should consider it deferrable 14:24:56 <asn> nickm: which one, i'm sorry? 14:25:03 <asn> isabela: that's also bug on my code. can handle this. 14:25:08 <nickm> row 41 == #14957 14:25:10 <isabela> ok 14:25:13 <isabela> so stay 14:25:16 <asn> not very important. 14:25:19 <Yawning> maybe instead of rows, we use use #s 14:25:22 <nickm> #s 14:25:27 <nickm> would be better IMO if that's ok 14:25:27 <Yawning> so the bot pipes up 14:25:28 <isabela> sorry 14:25:36 <isabela> will do it 14:26:10 <asn> nickm: idon't think it's very important. gonna take 1-2 days with testing i estimate. i can take something else, but eventually it will need to get fixed probably. 14:26:29 <armadev> i'm a big fan of #8782 14:26:43 <isabela> asn: i think we can keep it there 14:26:52 <asn> sure 14:27:18 <nickm> armadev: that one is slated for inclusion I believe. 14:27:18 <isabela> who is chupacabra? 14:27:52 <isabela> ok chupacabra please remove yellow 'asn' from that row :) 14:28:15 <Sebastian> I am removing the question marks from the stuff that says Sebastian? 14:28:28 <isabela> row 48 -> #15061 14:28:31 <isabela> nick 14:30:24 <nickm> I think that if the rest of the ed25519 stuff gets done and that slips, it will do no harm 14:30:49 <dgoulet> hrm once #12498 is merged for which we plan for 0.2.7, the controller using identity keys should follow else for a full version the controller will be out of sync with current possible keys? 14:31:12 <Yawning> dgoulet: our initial ed25519 stuff doesn't deprecate RSA 14:31:32 <dgoulet> it doesn't but controller should at least be able to tell that ed25519 keys exists (are) ? 14:32:13 <Yawning> we spit out the raw descriptor right? 14:32:22 <Yawning> isn't it the app code's problem at that point to do that? 14:32:30 <nickm> I agree that telling the controller is good. 14:32:36 <nickm> I only question whether it is _necessary_. 14:32:45 <nickm> If we defer that to 0.2.8 or later, nothing bad happens 14:33:04 <dgoulet> fair enough 14:33:18 <isabela> ok 14:33:29 <Yawning> (though if we do the ed key stuff right, it should be easy/nearly free to do) 14:34:16 <armadev> what does pink in row 183 mean? 14:34:30 <isabela> armadev: used to be red but is not anymore 14:34:31 <nickm> armadev: "was once rejected" 14:34:34 <armadev> ok 14:34:44 <isabela> ok 14:35:30 <isabela> I think row 48 is out from this release then 14:35:45 <Yawning> isn't it "move it to the next list"? 14:35:56 <Yawning> we aren't redding it right? 14:36:34 <armadev> #15235 seems like a useful doc thing. ln5 has a wiki page with some answers to it. 14:36:42 <isabela> Yawning: not sure what you mean 14:36:52 <qwk> Will the "vuln" since operation onymous be fixed so it will safe to host onion sites again? highlight me if you response ;) 14:36:53 <Yawning> when you say it's out 14:37:13 <qwk> Atm Im using i2p but its way to slow 14:37:24 <Yawning> hm nvm 14:37:34 <dgoulet> next? 14:37:39 <armadev> qwk: you're in the wrong channel. 14:37:44 <isabela> ok 14:38:00 <isabela> 49 -> #15062 14:38:02 <isabela> nickm 14:38:03 <qwk> armadev: can you recommend me the right channel ? 14:38:07 <Yawning> same thing 14:38:15 <isabela> ok 14:38:24 <armadev> qwk: #tor will be better for you. 14:38:29 <armadev> qwk: also see /topic 14:38:30 <qwk> thanks 14:38:41 <isabela> so is ok to move it to the other list? 14:39:02 <nickm> I think it's okay to call it a don't-have-to-do-yet 14:39:09 <isabela> ok 14:39:18 <isabela> row 51 #14881 14:39:47 <nickm> I don't get that one. how bad is it? 14:39:49 <dgoulet> rob's patch is a one liner 14:40:10 <nickm> does it require a revision of the spec or a new consensus method number? 14:40:26 <Yawning> no 14:40:29 <Yawning> I don't think so 14:40:38 <nickm> in that case, since there's a patch, we can leave it in 14:40:46 <nickm> (it's in needs_review, yeah?) 14:41:02 <Yawning> yeah 14:41:09 <isabela> ok 14:41:10 <Yawning> we can always defer it later if it ends up being scary 14:41:14 <nickm> great 14:41:42 <isabela> ok 14:41:51 <isabela> row 55 -> #13802 14:42:05 <isabela> sorry 56 14:42:06 <dgoulet> no issue at all to defer 14:42:15 <nickm> #13802 it would be a cool thing to do, but it woudl be just as cool in 6 months 14:42:16 <dgoulet> it's moving too much anyway right now 14:42:24 <isabela> argh (me got confused) 14:42:37 <isabela> ok 14:43:10 <isabela> is everyone ok with that? 14:43:16 <Yawning> mmhmm 14:43:19 <nickm> row 56 is #15017 14:43:39 <nickm> maybe a good idea, maybe not. hard to say 14:43:53 <Yawning> I think, it might be interesting to look at, but there's more important perf stuff 14:44:00 <dgoulet> ^ 14:44:07 <nickm> IMO deferrable, but not must-defer 14:44:12 <Yawning> ^ 14:44:15 <dgoulet> I think it's a perf issue but can be defer 14:44:18 <dgoulet> ^ also 14:44:26 <nickm> but also messing with openssl stack stuff is usually harder than we expect 14:44:38 <Yawning> indeed 14:45:02 <Yawning> also afraid of 'oh go dopenssl does what?' leading to a rats nest 14:45:26 <isabela> cool 14:45:36 * nickm chuckles at "dopenssl". It's openssl on dope :) 14:45:39 <dgoulet> I think asn got confused for the next one, I think he wanted to put is name on ;) 14:45:46 <isabela> yeah 14:45:57 <dgoulet> beacuse #8243 is I think an important one 14:46:02 <isabela> yes 14:46:04 <isabela> thanks dgoulet 14:46:12 <dgoulet> ah fixed! very nice :) 14:46:13 <asn> yeah basically 14:46:22 <isabela> row 100 #2149 14:46:27 <isabela> nickm and Yawning 14:46:42 <Yawning> defer, nice to have, but not critical, it's for magic annonymity boxes and stuff 14:46:55 <Yawning> the solution to that is to stop the tor process 14:47:00 <nickm> could be nice to have. It would help the network some maybe, but I believ3e it promises to be hard. I don't trust the patch we have for it. 14:47:19 <nickm> basically I think it should be "large" not "medium". 14:47:43 <isabela> ok 14:47:46 <isabela> will update 14:48:04 <Yawning> (also if it' sjust consensus downloads, we're merging the diff stuff which should help) 14:48:25 <armadev> ok, i have done a pass through the list. woo. 14:48:25 <isabela> ok 14:48:36 <isabela> anyone disagress? 14:48:44 <armadev> mostly i tried to leave stuff alone since if i get near stuff people will expect me to do things :) 14:48:56 <isabela> heheh 14:49:02 <isabela> pro tip :) 14:49:03 <isabela> alright 14:49:04 <asn> guys i will have to take a break. the day is ending and I have the HS meeting in an hour. i only nominated #8864 because more HS ops are worrying about it, and I'd be interested in looking at it. 14:49:20 <isabela> asn: go for it 14:49:23 <nickm> +1 14:49:31 <Yawning> if you wanna do it, go for it imo 14:49:40 <dgoulet> +1 14:49:47 <armadev> sounds like a sponsorR thing too 14:50:00 <Yawning> ugh, wtb trac timeline fixed, but I'm too scared to poke at the db 14:51:05 <isabela> qq do we want to go over green? 14:51:06 * armadev tags #8864 with SponsorR 14:51:17 <nickm> we could 14:51:36 <nickm> 104-106 are all green, and all about faster curve25519/ntor, and all have (some kind of) patches 14:51:41 <dgoulet> ahha all "faster crypto" bug are assigned to Yawning :D 14:51:59 <Yawning> well, it'd either be nick or me I think 14:52:15 <dgoulet> no no it's fine, I can see where your interest is ;) 14:52:26 <Yawning> I'm not sure where our biggest bang for our buck will be re curve25519, I think cpuworker stuff might end up winning over these 14:52:35 <dgoulet> cpu worker also I think 14:52:44 <Yawning> but I'll know p fast if I poke at this stuff 14:52:59 <isabela> can we do a bulk ok for 104, 105, 106 and 108 14:53:00 <isabela> ? 14:53:13 <nickm> 108 is very different from the others, 14:53:16 <isabela> or do you want to go one by one? 14:53:17 <isabela> ok 14:53:19 <nickm> but I think we can bulk-ok 104,105,106 14:53:23 <Yawning> the other 3 are all the same 14:53:29 <Yawning> reasons yeah 14:53:36 <isabela> so bulk ok for those 14:53:52 <nickm> sure 14:54:00 <isabela> and how do people few about #7144 14:54:04 <isabela> row 108 14:54:21 <Yawning> we need that because it's an obvious attack 14:54:25 <Yawning> vs our good pts 14:54:30 <Yawning> and it breaks all of them 14:54:36 <isabela> :( 14:54:50 <Yawning> cept meek I guess 14:54:59 <nickm> it's hard though. Do we have a design for it? 14:55:09 <Yawning> p 188? 14:55:21 <nickm> ah 14:55:26 <Yawning> I liked the design, but need to think about it more 14:55:58 <armadev> yawning: doesn't break all of them. good bridges are multi-homed. 14:56:09 <Yawning> >.< 14:56:16 <armadev> but yes, i like the design too. maybe a "decide about the design" step in between? 14:56:30 <Yawning> yeah I just don't think it's immediate defer 14:56:43 <Yawning> because despite the complexity, it needs to be done sooner rather than later 14:56:46 <nickm> ok 14:56:52 <nickm> I do want to call it can-defer though 14:56:59 <Yawning> yeah 14:57:05 <Yawning> next list is fine 14:57:31 <Yawning> till we find all our stuff mysteriously blocked, then it gets bumped up >.> 14:57:34 <nickm> onwards? 14:57:38 <nickm> +1 14:57:58 <isabela> so it should be red? 14:58:05 <Yawning> noooooo 14:58:08 <Yawning> D: 14:58:17 <Yawning> move it to the middle list 14:58:20 <Yawning> and ungrey it 14:58:23 <isabela> I mean 14:58:28 <isabela> yes 14:58:34 <isabela> that is what I meant :) 14:58:52 <isabela> I will remove the green names from there (gray out means to move it to the middle list) 14:59:21 <dgoulet> isabela: FYI, just added row 127, it's a new one and imo important short-term 14:59:30 <isabela> lets move to the next yellow one: row 114 -> #3199 14:59:34 <isabela> tx dgoulet 14:59:35 <dgoulet> and definitely could fit in a sponsor U or R 15:00:00 <Sebastian> (I have to leave for a while now. I went through the entire list, tho. Thanks for getting this organized!) 15:00:17 <Yawning> nickm: that's in needs_review is the patch bitrotted or something? 15:00:20 <isabela> Sebastian: np! take it easy 15:00:49 <nickm> patch is bitrotted and IMO the wrong approach 15:02:03 <Yawning> *looks at the explanation* oh wow 15:02:04 <Yawning> yeah 15:02:11 <isabela> cool 15:02:18 <blanu> I am here for the PT meeting. 15:02:25 <isabela> so lets keep it yellow 15:02:36 <Yawning> blanu: an hour early? 15:02:42 <Yawning> it's 1500 utc 15:02:45 <Yawning> :P 15:02:53 <Yawning> thought we did them at 1600 15:02:55 <dgoulet> Yawning: huh PT and HS meeting at same time? 15:03:02 <Yawning> yes 15:03:10 <Yawning> I brought that up yesterday and asn said "fuck" 15:03:13 <isabela> yes 15:03:14 <dgoulet> :( 15:03:17 <blanu> I have it on my calendar as 1600 UTC. 15:03:31 <blanu> So not sure why my calendar says it is now if now is 1500 UTC. 15:03:34 <isabela> dgoulet: i got confused because PT switched weeks after valencia 15:03:44 <Yawning> TZ=UTC date 15:03:45 <dgoulet> isabela: ah, shit happens :) 15:03:52 <Yawning> oh well 15:03:54 <isabela> i sent a note to the list 15:03:55 <Yawning> sorry 15:04:02 <isabela> hopefully today we can get a better day moving forward 15:04:16 <Yawning> I think the pt meeting time in general is awful for everyone, so isis wanted to reschedule it 15:04:35 <Yawning> (as in, only the europeans have PT meeting at a good time) 15:04:43 <Yawning> anyway 15:05:03 <isabela> Yawning: ah, I can help run a poll for that (just let me know the ppl that should vote) 15:05:04 <blanu> So what does this mean for the meeting today? It seems like two meetings at the same time on the same channel will not work well. 15:05:11 <Yawning> #3199 is probably deferable 15:05:12 <isabela> ok 15:05:18 <Yawning> blanu: we'll force them to move 15:05:25 <Yawning> we had the time slot first 15:05:35 <blanu> Okay I will be back in an hour then. 15:05:40 <isabela> what about the next row #10817 15:05:51 <isabela> deferable 15:06:08 <dgoulet> good to have, deferable 15:06:09 <Yawning> yeah, just a documentation thing 15:06:14 <isabela> ok 15:06:17 <Yawning> all the developers build their own 15:06:23 <isabela> alright! 15:06:40 <isabela> lets move to the next list 15:06:43 <isabela> or is ppl sick of this? 15:06:48 <isabela> :) 15:06:56 <Yawning> yes, but it's important 15:07:01 <Yawning> so we might as well finish 15:07:02 <isabela> thanks Yawning :) 15:07:15 <Yawning> (imo) 15:07:34 <isabela> ok a bunch of greens right at the top 15:07:52 <isabela> #15087 -> should it be added to top list? 15:08:23 <dgoulet> sounds like it's U so yeah 15:08:54 <nickm> yes 15:08:58 <nickm> also it's very small 15:09:04 <isabela> ok 15:09:07 <isabela> sounds good 15:09:15 <isabela> next one #15220 15:09:28 <nickm> a bunch of folks want that and I already wrote the patch 15:09:37 <isabela> ahh nice 15:10:05 <isabela> oh we lost the ticket for row 132 15:10:42 * nickm searches for it 15:11:02 <nickm> #2555 15:11:24 <isabela> thanks 15:12:08 <isabela> sounds like an easy small thing for sponsorR 15:12:19 <armadev> 'ha' 15:12:23 <Yawning> "small" 15:12:40 <isabela> hehe it says small :) 15:13:09 <Yawning> think that was on our croudfunding idea list as well 15:13:49 <isabela> so we should move it to the top list right? 15:13:52 <isabela> all ok with it? 15:14:09 <Yawning> it's just th eproposal right? 15:14:14 <Yawning> not like "add it" 15:14:21 <isabela> I believe so 15:14:32 <isabela> nickm: ? 15:15:14 <nickm> fine with me 15:15:30 <isabela> ok 15:15:38 <isabela> next 133 #13339 15:15:51 <nickm> yes, really should do. 15:15:58 <Yawning> yes 15:16:00 <Yawning> dooooo 15:16:06 <isabela> hehe 15:16:07 <isabela> ok 15:16:14 <isabela> 134 #14165 15:16:34 <nickm> really should figure that out; we're in a bad way for forward-compatibility and future-proofing 15:16:38 <nickm> imo 15:17:15 <Yawning> ack 15:17:52 <isabela> ok I will keep on moving ppl ping if they disagree 15:18:00 <isabela> 134 #15228 15:18:06 <isabela> ops 135 15:18:39 <nickm> hm. could be good to do; but it feels loraxy to me. 15:19:37 <isabela> ok 15:19:48 <nickm> would improve load on dirauths though 15:20:29 <isabela> should we add it to the top list then? 15:20:43 <nickm> i ... think so? 15:20:48 <nickm> what do others think? 15:20:53 <nickm> oh hey are we still in our meeting? 15:20:56 <nickm> we shouldn't be in meeting 15:20:58 <nickm> #endmeeting