16:00:02 #startmeeting tor anti-censorship meeting 16:00:02 Meeting started Thu Jan 15 16:00:02 2026 UTC. The chair is meskio. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:05 hello everyone!!! 16:00:09 here is our meeting pad: https://pad.riseup.net/p/r.9574e996bb9c0266213d38b91b56c469 16:00:11 ask me in private to give you the link of the pad to be able to edit it if you don't have it 16:00:13 I'll wait few minutes for everybody to add you've been working on and put items on the agenda 16:00:14 hihi! 16:00:17 helo 16:00:21 hiii^^ 16:01:15 hi 16:01:23 hi~hi~ 16:02:31 should we start with the first topic? 16:02:39 Add rate limiting back to broker for just /proxy endpoint for now 16:02:47 that one is mine 16:03:12 the proposal is here: https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/anti-censorship/pluggable-transports/snowflake/-/issues/40506 16:03:34 i wanted to bring it up here because there's no code review process for this 16:03:49 i removed rate limiting from the broker because i thought it was causing client timeout errors 16:04:11 we'd originally put it in place to protect against DoS attacks on broker endpoints 16:04:28 i want to bring it back just for the /proxy endpoing (and maybe robots.txt) 16:04:52 the /client endpoint is still tricky to implement 16:05:20 and the /answer endpoint is also tricky because we don't want to prevent an honest proxy from responding after a client match 16:05:41 if anyone is opposed please say so here or on the issue and i'll deploy it early next week 16:06:02 I wonder if this limit would impact users in school, or in environment where they are sharing outbound address with other persons 16:06:21 i'm not overly concerned about it affecting proxy polls 16:06:46 arguably, we want more IP address diversity so preventing multiple proxies with the same address from polling too often is also good 16:07:07 yes, I think this is true... 16:07:28 we can set this limit now and see if there is anyone complains 16:07:38 I've been running in some places multiple proxies on the same IP, when the network was more conjested 16:08:31 but makes sense to me to add the rate limit 16:08:35 meskio: ok, that's good to know, there's probably some tradeoff with proxy pool availability and poll rate 16:08:48 which is why we might actually want https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/anti-censorship/pluggable-transports/snowflake/-/issues/25598 16:08:56 but this would only apply to honest proxies 16:09:06 maybe i'll set the rate limit a bit higher 16:10:53 no thing more from me on this topic 16:11:11 during the iran-israel war the proxies were overloaded, I think is the time set this up, not sure if I ever tear it down, in most of the situations it looks like we don't have such overloaded network and as you say we want IP diversity 16:11:46 yeah we can also remove it if we need more proxy pool capacity 16:11:55 +1 16:12:00 let's add it we can always change 16:12:30 ok that's it from me on this 16:12:40 cool, let's move to the next topic 16:12:44 "Conjure test network" 16:12:47 ln5: ?? 16:13:08 yes, thanks. i'd like to know how much effort to put in, and electricity 16:13:29 i shut it down on dec 1 to save electricity 16:13:45 is it easy to bring it back when we need it? 16:14:16 easy enough to start it and verify that it's working, but if not... might take some time 16:14:32 (if i figured out how to *not* do the userland polling the power consumption would be far less) 16:14:44 I see 16:14:58 but the other issue is to keep it updated 16:15:10 which will take some hours per time unit 16:15:29 and also set up monitoring, so that we know when it needs care 16:15:40 we don't have active conjure development planned on our team for now 16:15:41 all can be done, but if there is no value i don't want to spend cycles 16:15:48 we don't have a clear plan on when we'll get back to work on conjure, the next steps are to get a bridge up (I think is mostly there) and start giving it to users 16:16:08 so it will be useful in the future, but I think is fine to keep it down until we get back into developing conjure 16:16:14 and it might take some time 16:16:21 like months? 16:16:38 yes 16:16:49 I don't expect us to do much with conjure in Q1 16:17:04 ok, that's enough for me to know how to handle it for now, thanks 16:17:19 we might not do any serious development until we try it a bit with users and apply for another grant with what we learn 16:17:25 if so it will take many months 16:18:19 ln5: thank you for putting so much care into the setup and documentation process for the test network 16:18:40 yes, thank you ln5! 16:19:06 thanks, i will point someone i met earlier towards the docs and see if they're able to set it up themselves 16:19:24 thanks ln5! 16:19:25 that's amazing 16:19:25 nice :) 16:20:14 any other topics to discuss today? 16:20:27 there are two interesting links, but I think they are from last week, I'll remove them 16:21:24 do we want to pick up a date for the reading paper we have in the queue? "Fingerprint-resistant DTLS for usage in Snowflake" 16:22:11 yes, I think we can set a day for that! 16:22:20 Jan 29th? 16:22:22 in two weeks? 16:22:30 or do we want more time for it? 16:22:49 I thin Jan 29th would work for me 16:23:07 I'd prefer the following week if possible 16:23:27 sure, let's do Feb 5 16:23:28 I am happy with the following week as well 16:23:39 nice! 16:23:46 set then 16:23:46 I'll join to answer questions etc 16:23:52 :) 16:24:07 I'll give it 1min to see if someone has something else and I'll close the meeting if not 16:25:09 #endmeeting