| 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178 | Filename: 162-consensus-flavors.txtTitle: Publish the consensus in multiple flavorsAuthor: Nick MathewsonCreated: 14-May-2009Target: 0.2.2Status: OpenOverview:   This proposal describes a way to publish each consensus in   multiple simultaneous formats, or "flavors".  This will reduce the   amount of time needed to deploy new consensus-like documents, and   reduce the size of consensus documents in the long term.Motivation:   In the future, we will almost surely want different fields and   data in the network-status document.  Examples include:      - Publishing hashes of microdescriptors instead of hashes of        full descriptors (Proposal 158).      - Including different digests of descriptors, instead of the        perhaps-soon-to-be-totally-broken SHA1.   Note that in both cases, from the client's point of view, this   information _replaces_ older information.  If we're using a   SHA256 hash, we don't need to see the SHA1.  If clients only want   microdescriptors, they don't (necessarily) need to see hashes of   other things.   Our past approach to cases like this has been to shovel all of   the data into the consensus document.  But this is rather poor   for bandwidth.  Adding a single SHA256 hash to a consensus for   each router increases the compressed consensus size by 47%.  In   comparison, replacing a single SHA1 hash with a SHA256 hash for   each listed router increases the consensus size by only 18%.Design in brief:   Let the voting process remain as it is, until a consensus is   generated.  With future versions of the voting algorithm, instead   of just a single consensus being generated, multiple consensus   "flavors" are produced.   Consensuses (all of them) include a list of which flavors are   being generated.  Caches fetch and serve all flavors of consensus   that are listed, regardless of whether they can parse or validate   them, and serve them to clients.  Thus, once this design is in   place, we won't need to deploy more cache changes in order to get   new flavors of consensus to be cached.   Clients download only the consensus flavor they want.A note on hashes:   Everything in this document is specified to use SHA256, and to be   upgradeable to use better hashes in the future.Spec modifications:   1. URLs and changes to the current consensus format.   Every consensus flavor has a name consisting of a sequence of one   or more alphanumeric characters and dashes.  For compatibility   current descriptor flavor is called "ns".   The supported consensus flavors are defined as part of the   authorities' consensus method.   For each supported flavor, every authority calculates another   consensus document of as-yet-unspecified format, and exchanges   detached signatures for these documents as in the current consensus   design.   In addition to the consensus currently served at   /tor/status-vote/(current|next)/consensus.z , authorities serve   another consensus of each flavor "F" from the location   /tor/status-vote/(current|next)/F/consensus.z.   When caches serve these documents, they do so from the same   locations.   2. Document format: generic consensus.   The format of a flavored consensus is as-yet-unspecified, except   that the first line is:      "network-status-version" SP version SP flavor NL   where version is 3 or higher, and the flavor is a string   consisting of alphanumeric characters and dashes, matching the   corresponding flavor listed in the unflavored consensus.   3. Document format: detached signatures.   In addition to the current detached signature format, we allow   the first line to take the form,      "consensus-digest" SP flavor SP 1*(Algname "=" Digest) NL   The consensus-signatures URL should contain the signatures   for _all_ flavors of consensus.   4. The consensus index:   Authorities additionally generate and serve a consensus-index   document.  Its format is:       Header ValidAfter ValidUntil Documents Signatures       Header = "consensus-index" SP version NL       ValidAfter = as in a consensus       ValidUntil = as in a consensus       Documents = Document*       Document = "document" SP flavor SP SignedLength                                    1*(SP AlgorithmName "=" Digest) NL       Signatures = Signature*       Signature = "directory-signature" SP algname SP identity                           SP signing-key-digest NL signature    There must be one Document line for each generated consensus flavor.    Each Document line describes the length of the signed portion of    a consensus (the signatures themselves are not included), along    with one or more digests of that signed portion.  Digests are    given in hex.  The algorithm "sha256" MUST be included; others    are allowed.    The algname part of a signature describes what algorithm was    used to hash the identity and signing keys, and to compute the    signature.  The algorithm "sha256" MUST be recognized;    signatures with unrecognized algorithms MUST be ignored.    (See below).    The consensus index is made available at       /tor/status-vote/(current|next)/consensus-index.z.    Caches should fetch this document so they can check the    correctness of the different consensus documents they fetch.    They do not need to check anything about an unrecognized    consensus document beyond its digest and length.    4.1. The "sha256" signature format.    The 'SHA256' signature format for directory objects is defined as    the RSA signature of the OAEP+-padded SHA256 digest of the SHA256    digest of the item to be signed.  When checking signatures,    the signature MUST be treated as valid if the signature material    begins with SHA256(SHA256(document)); this allows us to add other    data later.Considerations:    - We should not create a new flavor of consensus when adding a      field instead wouldn't be too onerous.    - We should not proliferate flavors lightly: clients will be      distinguishable based on which flavor they download.Migration:    - Stage one: authorities begin generating and serving      consensus-index files.    - Stage two: Caches begin downloading consensus-index files,      validating them, and using them to decide what flavors of      consensus documents to cache.  They download all listed      documents, and compare them to the digests given in the      consensus.    - Stage three: Once we want to make a significant change to the      consensus format, we deploy another flavor of consensus at the      authorities.  This will immediately start getting cached by the      caches, and clients can start fetching the new flavor without      waiting a version or two for enough caches to begin supporting      it.Acknowledgements:    Aspects of this design and its applications to hash migration were    heavily influenced by IRC conversations with Marian.
 |