|
@@ -105,7 +105,27 @@ Status: Open
|
|
|
We need more naming authorities, possibly with some kind of auto-naming
|
|
We need more naming authorities, possibly with some kind of auto-naming
|
|
|
feature. This is out-of-scope for this proposal -NM]
|
|
feature. This is out-of-scope for this proposal -NM]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-4. Other benefits:
|
|
+4. Changes to the v2 directory
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ Previously v2 authorities that had a binding for a server named Bob did
|
|
|
|
|
+ not list any other server named Bob. This will change too:
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ Version 2 authorities will start listing all routers they know about,
|
|
|
|
|
+ whether they conflict with a name-binding or not: Servers for which
|
|
|
|
|
+ this authority has a binding will continue to be marked Named,
|
|
|
|
|
+ additionally all other servers of that will be listed without the
|
|
|
|
|
+ Named flag (i.e. there will be no Unnamed flag in v2 status documents).
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ Clients already should handle having a named Bob alongside unnamed
|
|
|
|
|
+ Bobs correctly, and having the unnamed Bobs in the status file even
|
|
|
|
|
+ without the named server is no worse than the curren status quo where
|
|
|
|
|
+ clients learn about those severs from other authorities.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ The benefit of this is that an authority's opinion on a server like
|
|
|
|
|
+ Guard, Stable, Fast etc. can now be learned by clients even if that
|
|
|
|
|
+ specific authority has reserved that server's name for somebody else.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+5. Other benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This new flag will allow people to operate servers that happen to have
|
|
This new flag will allow people to operate servers that happen to have
|
|
|
the same nickname as somebody who registered their server two years ago
|
|
the same nickname as somebody who registered their server two years ago
|
Peter Palfrader