17:03:09 <asn> #startmeeting network team meeting, 12 Aug 2019 17:03:09 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Aug 12 17:03:09 2019 UTC. The chair is asn. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:03:09 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:03:11 <asn> boom 17:03:18 <dgoulet> \o/ 17:03:21 <asn> who is around? 17:03:21 <asn> o/ 17:03:46 <gaba> hi! 17:03:57 <MeetBot> gaba: Error: Can't start another meeting, one is in progress. 17:04:02 <gaba> oops 17:04:05 <asn> i did it 17:04:18 <gaba> yes, sorry. I got an issue with the window and had to close it and join again 17:04:41 <asn> ok how we doing this? 17:05:24 <asn> ok let me start with the reviews 17:05:31 <gaba> mostly we want to talk about reviews today. right? 17:05:36 <asn> most people are on vacs 17:05:37 <gaba> unless there is something else that people are bringing 17:05:44 <asn> and we are not assigning reviews to mike because of the esr review 17:05:54 <asn> so it's just me, dgoulet and teor. which means that the three of us got many reviews to do. 17:06:04 <asn> if it's too much for this week, perhaps we can carry them out to next week i guess... 17:06:29 <asn> (i got 4, teor and dgoulet got 3. and some of them are non-trivial) 17:06:50 <asn> so thats it for reviews. dgoulet knows the above already :) 17:06:55 <gaba> is there any type of priority that we can put to the reviews and only do the more urgent? 17:07:00 <asn> hm 17:07:19 <asn> i guess the reviews can get prioritized indeed 17:07:23 <gaba> yes, I think we should just have a few reviews assigned and move the rest to next week 17:07:25 <asn> not sure if me and dgoulet should do the priortiization 17:07:52 <asn> historically, we've been assigning all the reviews and letting the reviewer do the prioritization 17:08:02 <gaba> ok, that works too :) 17:08:04 <asn> maybe it's not the best approach, and we should partially assign them 17:08:11 <asn> but it's what we have right now :) 17:08:15 <asn> and what we did this week :) 17:08:20 <gaba> just to be sure we do not have something that needs to be done soon and does not get done 17:08:44 <asn> i think its the 041 stuff that needs to get done asap 17:08:52 <gaba> yes 17:09:03 <asn> according to 17:09:04 <asn> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases/041Status 17:09:11 <asn> there is no 041must or 041should in needs_review 17:09:23 <asn> so we good 17:09:58 <gaba> ok 17:10:00 <asn> i think teor took good care of these keywords this week 17:10:07 <asn> like triaged them out etc. 17:10:12 <mikeperry> so #30992 is out of 041-must, but #31356 should be in 041-must, I think 17:10:46 <asn> hmm 17:11:12 <mikeperry> though I guess listing the protover support is Padding=1,2 instead of Padding=2 makes it less urgent to get in the first 0.4.1 stable 17:11:15 <dgoulet> yah changing the protover is high prio imo 17:11:16 <asn> mikeperry: there is no 041 change needed for #30992? 17:11:33 <asn> mikeperry: and what's the status quo of #31356? 17:11:40 <asn> i see a few children ticket etc. 17:11:41 <asn> what needs to be done? 17:12:08 <mikeperry> asn: we discussed this on the weds meeting.. I don't think it makes sense.. the sequence number field is too high risk of a change, and won't really solve the fingerprintability problem of these circuits anyway 17:12:41 <asn> ack 17:13:00 <asn> so #30992 is something that needs further thinking and well into 042 territories 17:13:31 <gaba> ok, can any of you change #30992 to 042 then? 17:13:45 <asn> ok i can do that 17:13:55 <asn> or mike would you prefer to do since you know more about this? 17:14:34 <mikeperry> I can write an explaination on the ticket yah 17:14:43 <asn> and move it out of the milestone 17:14:44 <asn> thanks 17:15:12 <gaba> ok, and what is the situation for #31356 ? 17:16:02 <mikeperry> I don't remember the meeting saying anything about not removing a protover, or discussing this phased protover removal plan on #31356.. 17:17:30 * gaba looking at logs... 17:17:47 <gaba> http://meetbot.debian.net/tor-meeting/2019/tor-meeting.2019-08-07-22.59.log.html 17:17:49 * asn reading ticket 17:17:56 <asn> thx 17:18:36 <asn> too much text for now i think 17:18:41 <asn> mikeperry: what do you think is the right way forward at this stage? 17:20:23 <mikeperry> asn: I think bumping the protover can still work, but it is not as simple as we thought in that meeting, either 17:22:00 <asn> mikeperry: how can i help with this? 17:22:03 <asn> i think im a bit behind on this 17:22:10 <asn> i was not aware of this whole discussion in the logs 17:22:17 <asn> and im not sure if i can page it in during this meeting 17:23:35 <mikeperry> I believe that if we can drop support for Padding=1 in 0.4.1.x-stable, and have 0.4.1-stable clients and 0.4.1-stable relays only try to negotiate padding if Padding=2 is listed, then that will be sufficient 17:24:01 <asn> ack 17:24:08 <mikeperry> I don't think we need to list Padding=1,2 and do this staged retirement of Padding=1 (which wasn't discussed, and seems over-complicated) 17:24:58 <asn> i see nick suggesting 1,2: 23:27:41 <nickm> I think you want to advertise padding=1,2 17:25:33 <asn> (btw i obviously dont know enough about this issue, so hope im not saying stupid stuff) 17:25:39 <asn> but i can try to understand more this week 17:25:43 <asn> (since i also dont know much about protover) 17:25:56 <mikeperry> I think we only need to do that if we care about alpha clients negotiating with stable relays.. that's what doing the phased transition would allow for 17:26:06 <asn> hm 17:26:38 <asn> and if we dont do phased transition, alpha clients wont be able to negotiate with stable relays? 17:26:43 <mikeperry> I think it is OK just to say "alphas will stop negotiating padding with stable relays".. I think it's not worth the effort to make sure they continue to work for this edge case 17:26:44 <asn> doesnt this sound bad for reesarchers? 17:27:03 <dgoulet> alpha are not considered stable... we should not backcompat for them... 17:27:31 <mikeperry> I think if we miss 0.4.1-stable for this change, *then* we have to do this phased transition 17:27:46 <asn> aha 17:28:32 <asn> im a bit confuse about all this protover/stable/alpha situation so i dont think i can give useful feedback atm. but i can look into this tomorrow. 17:28:43 <mikeperry> but if we can get it in by first stable, we can just say "old 0.4.1-alpha tor won't pad with 0.4.1-stable tor; stop using old alphas, use newer ones" 17:29:04 <asn> ack 17:29:07 <asn> i think that's ok 17:30:02 <gaba> ok, can somebody write this decision in #31356 (and maybe #31387) ? 17:30:26 <dgoulet> mikeperry: yes +1 17:30:34 <mikeperry> so I can make that change top priority for me so we have a good shot at getting it in the very first 0.4.1-stable 17:30:37 <dgoulet> lets just get it in 041 17:30:44 <asn> ok 17:30:52 <asn> i will take a good look at this tomorrow, and try to do something useful 17:30:59 <asn> and i can do any code review needed if there is code to review 17:31:03 <mikeperry> ok. i will update the branch for you by then 17:31:10 <asn> thanks mike 17:31:28 <gaba> thanks 17:31:39 <dgoulet> nice 17:31:47 <asn> fun :-) 17:32:45 <asn> ok 17:32:57 <asn> ehm one more thing 17:33:30 <asn> it would be nice if the decisions we take and the patches we write are blessed by nick/teor. so if we wait for them until next week, we will have time until 041-stable right? 17:33:54 <asn> like if we have everything ready for them 17:34:23 <gaba> teor could be commenting tonight. I think nick would be ok with this decision, right? Can't things rollback if not? 17:35:08 <asn> guess so 17:35:32 <gaba> but have no idea how critical are this changes 17:35:35 <dgoulet> Nick releasese 041 stable so we still have time until the first stable for sure for nickm/teor to assess that decision 17:35:46 <gaba> ok 17:35:47 <asn> dgoulet: good point :) 17:36:54 <mikeperry> ah yah date got pushed to 8/20 17:37:08 <gaba> ? 17:37:09 <mikeperry> on the release dates page 17:37:12 <gaba> ahh, yes 17:38:08 <gaba> anything else? 17:38:27 <gaba> can people briefly check the roadmap for this week if everything is there for each of you? https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/core/tor/boards 17:38:30 <gaba> related to teh roadmap 17:39:16 <asn> its there yes 17:39:19 <asn> but #31356 is not there 17:39:26 <asn> but thats ok i guess 17:39:31 <asn> since it's not formally on the roadmap 17:39:54 <asn> but yeah that kanban works for me 17:40:32 <gaba> I'm adding it as you all are working on it as s2 17:42:59 <asn> sounds good :) 17:44:28 <gaba> Anything else for today? 17:44:31 <asn> i think we are good :) 17:44:33 * dgoulet is good 17:45:18 <mikeperry> +1 17:45:25 <gaba> mikeperry: do you need any help for this week? 17:46:12 <asn> mikeperry: feel free to bounce s2 stuff on me 17:46:32 <mikeperry> I hope to start on an outline on the circpad dev docs; so I will need some cycles from asn to look at that and/or double-check our spec is current 17:46:42 <mikeperry> asn: yah, ok thanks. will do 17:46:43 <asn> sounds good 17:47:03 <gaba> ok. it seems we are good then. you all have a good week! 17:47:07 <dgoulet> \o/ 17:47:12 <asn> thanks! same to you! 17:47:20 <dgoulet> asn: you have the meetbot power :) 17:47:23 <gaba> :) 17:47:25 <asn> #endmeeting