17:01:43 <phw> #startmeeting anti-censorship weekly checkin 2019/04/25
17:01:43 <MeetBot> Meeting started Thu Apr 25 17:01:43 2019 UTC.  The chair is phw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:43 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:02:07 <phw> as usual, our meeting pad is here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-censorship-2019-keep
17:02:44 <phw> our first and only announcement is that fte will be retired
17:03:23 <phw> as i understand, it no longer has maintainers.  we wanted marionette to supersede it but it doesn't exactly have a maintainer either :)
17:03:40 <dcf1> that will allow removing a lot of code from Tor Browser: obfsproxy, python.
17:03:58 <dcf1> I think fte was the last dependent holding those in.
17:04:20 <phw> oh, interesting
17:04:21 <cohosh> oh nice
17:04:44 <GeKo> yes
17:04:46 <phw> other than tor browser, i can think of bridgedb needing a minor update.
17:04:47 <gaba> hi
17:04:50 <GeKo> and it's been a pita
17:05:58 <phw> i think we can move on to the discussion unless anyone has an fte eulogy
17:06:36 <phw> ok, we got some code to review.  gaba, did you add these links to the pad?
17:07:01 <gaba> i did
17:07:08 <gaba> the queries are by component
17:07:10 <gaba> for review
17:07:14 <gaba> gettor and obfuscation
17:07:26 <dcf1> I looked at the obfuscation component one and most of them are mine lol
17:07:41 <gaba> :)
17:07:44 <dcf1> #15125 and #25613 I have put in my "help with" this week.
17:08:08 <dcf1> #30138 and #30142 I think are ready to go but not urgent.
17:08:20 <cohosh> i can take one or both of the meek-client reviews
17:08:35 <cohosh> (not sure who else is in the review pool)
17:08:42 <dcf1> #29347 I can move into merge_ready I think. That one has to be somewhat coordinated with Tor Browser release (the upcoming ESR 68 and/or switch to meek_lite).
17:09:08 <dcf1> The two meek-client reviews are actually the same branch, the two tickets are similar.
17:09:13 <GeKo> fwiw i still like the meek_lite idea for a number of reasons
17:09:28 <GeKo> but won't have time to get back to it before we don't have 8.5 out
17:09:39 <GeKo> so hopefully in about two weeks
17:10:28 <dcf1> yeah no rush there
17:10:43 <phw> dcf1: with cohosh offering to review #15125 and #25613, is there anything else you need help with?
17:11:11 <dcf1> If anyone knows JS or WebExtension, they may want to look at #29347, but I don't think it's required.
17:12:32 <phw> i'll add this to my list of todos
17:12:50 <dcf1> thanks phw and cohosh.
17:13:05 <arlolra> I might peek at it
17:13:16 <arlolra> was thinking of working on the snowflake webextension
17:13:17 <dcf1> thx arlo
17:13:27 <cohosh> arlolra: that would be awesome
17:13:36 <phw> cheers arlolra
17:13:51 <arlolra> ok, sign me up
17:14:54 <phw> i think the only ticket left in the obfuscation category is #28655.  i have a fix for it, but it breaks unit tests and it doesn't seem like a trivial fix.  i'll need to do a bit more digging and then ask sysrqb or dgoulet for a review.
17:15:42 <phw> looks like we have three gettor tickets that need review
17:15:47 * phw wonders if hiro is here
17:15:50 <hiro> yep
17:15:53 <phw> o/
17:16:40 * ailanthus lurks supportively
17:16:45 <hiro> so the test ticket is not completed
17:16:50 <phw> i wonder what's necessary to move forward with #28339?
17:17:37 <hiro> log rotation and understanding what kind of statistics we need/want from gettor
17:17:38 <gaba> #1593 is not for review hiro ?
17:18:04 <hiro> if it is just aggregated statistics about what is downloaded or is it something more?
17:18:05 <phw> wow, #1593.  that's some serious trac archaeology
17:18:14 <gaba> 9 years ago :)
17:18:27 <hiro> yes!
17:18:47 <hiro> at the moment my idea was that if the code from the refactoring is ok, I could deploy it
17:19:04 <hiro> and continue with the testing and the logs ticket
17:19:04 <gaba> mmm, i do not understand if this two tickets need to be review or are not done yet
17:19:19 <hiro> not done
17:19:28 <hiro> or more likely both are partially done
17:19:33 <gaba> ok, i will move them back to new then
17:20:04 <phw> thanks gaba
17:20:17 <phw> what's the status of #28152?
17:21:25 <hiro> that's completed and I am waiting to know if I can move it from testing to prod
17:21:44 <hiro> when you write to gettor+test@tp.o that's what is answering
17:21:51 <phw> oh, great.  do you still need a review, hiro?
17:22:00 <hiro> and when you write to gettor@tp.o it's the old one
17:22:11 <hiro> well no one looked at the code
17:22:29 <hiro> I merged what Ilv did into our current repository
17:22:38 <gaba> so the idea would be to have a code review before you move it from staging into production
17:22:51 <hiro> yeah
17:22:55 <hiro> unless we want to do it yolo
17:23:08 <gaba> we are doing code reviews for all the code
17:23:21 <phw> i'll have a look at it.  is there a branch somewhere with all the changes?
17:23:26 <hiro> yes
17:24:11 <hiro> https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/hiro/gettor.git/tree/?h=refactoring
17:24:31 <hiro> also the list of people currently able to push to gettor main repo should be reviewed
17:24:57 <hiro> atm is only arma ilv kaner nima sukhbir
17:24:59 <phw> thanks hiro!
17:25:16 <gaba> hiro: can we have all that info in the ticket?
17:25:34 <hiro> ook
17:25:38 <phw> kaner hasn't been around in years as far as i know.  not sure how active the others are.
17:25:39 <gaba> (sorry if it is already tehre, the ticket is loading)
17:26:45 <gaba> ok, let's discuss it in the ticket, ok? and phw: you do the review? thanks!
17:27:12 <phw> yes, i made decent progress with #9316
17:27:25 <phw> here's a summary of how i intended to collect the data: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2019-April/013786.html
17:27:55 <phw> dcf1 already had a look at it and had some great ideas.  i'd like to hear from others if the approach is safe and sound.  i also intend to approach tor's research safety board.
17:28:08 <dcf1> A note on that, phw, I don't think that necessarily every bucket has to be divided by every factor.
17:28:29 <dcf1> I.e., I would be interested in knowing the distribution of lengths of X-Forwarded-For, even separate from other factors.
17:29:08 <dcf1> I think, only if we see something interesting or anomalous, will we want to start combining with other factors; until then, we can err on the side of privacy preserving.
17:29:37 <dcf1> I should reply to the mailing list and say this.
17:29:53 <phw> dcf1: yes, i had a hard time consolidating these two ideas.  i suppose we could just collect them separately, and think about it more if we see something interesting, as you suggest
17:30:32 <phw> ok, that's it from my side
17:30:49 <phw> does anyone else need help with reviews?
17:31:24 <phw> ok, the next item in our discussion section is about tapdance
17:31:28 * phw passes the mic to cohosh
17:31:52 <cohosh> yep, i was at a decoy routing meeting at one of the psiphon offices yesterday
17:32:15 <cohosh> and talked to sergey, eric, and nikita about their tapdance deployment and the possibility to making a tapdance PT for Tor
17:32:44 <phw> these are the same people who made httpsproxy, no?
17:32:47 <cohosh> they were excited about the idea and there are some promising reasons to try it out
17:32:58 <cohosh> phw: that was sergey yes
17:33:15 <cohosh> and i think we should still look at httpsproxy as well
17:33:20 <cohosh> if we want something to replace FTE
17:33:29 <gaba> do we have a link to the code on tapdance? it is kind of hard to search for :)
17:33:36 <cohosh> tapdance would offer us something different w.r.t the bridge enumeration problem
17:33:45 <cohosh> gaba: ah yeah, i can link it i just need a second
17:33:51 <gaba> yes np
17:33:56 <spri> <nikita> https://github.com/refraction-networking/tapdance
17:34:07 <spri> <nikita> https://github.com/sergeyfrolov/gotapdance/
17:34:14 <cohosh> spri: ty! (also hi)
17:34:16 <spri> <nikita> tapdance server and tapdance client
17:34:20 <gaba> ty
17:34:39 <spri> <nikita> [i dont’ usually monitor this channel, got name-pinged]
17:34:44 <cohosh> the benefits are that it as actively maintained and used
17:34:59 <phw> thanks spri, great to have you around
17:35:29 <cohosh> it's also written in go, and so hopefully wouldn't be too difficult to get working with goptlib
17:35:44 <phw> yes, i'm excited about this.  do we have a ticket already?
17:36:05 <cohosh> nope, i can make one
17:36:12 <phw> thanks cohosh
17:36:52 <cohosh> and then maybe we can have an email discussion with all the tapdance people and make sure this is something they want to move forward on
17:37:32 <phw> sounds good to me
17:37:58 <cohosh> \o/
17:39:01 <cohosh> i think that's it for me for now
17:39:02 <phw> ok, we're doing pretty good on time.  is there anything else, anybody wants to discuss?
17:39:18 <phw> (in personal news, i'll be on vacation next week, so cohosh will run the meeting)
17:40:24 <cohosh> enjoy your vacation!
17:40:45 <phw> thanks :)
17:41:05 <phw> looks like we're done for today, thanks everyone!
17:41:08 <phw> #endmeeting