Attempt to address points brought up in #tor flamewar. In particular, moved
commit6ad4c8a3764a9ba357d6ff3e20e9ee5728820ab0
authorMike Perry <mikeperry-git@fscked.org>
Tue, 5 Jun 2007 07:44:52 +0000 (5 07:44 +0000)
committerMike Perry <mikeperry-git@fscked.org>
Tue, 5 Jun 2007 07:44:52 +0000 (5 07:44 +0000)
treef5dcf959093e560c55025a5b1ac4c82ad86bbb30
parentb6c6dd7e55ecd80ced6c4d9789d3a825cd8d5fd1
Attempt to address points brought up in #tor flamewar. In particular, moved
"Who will enable this option?" section towards the top of the proposal, to
attempt to get everyone on the same page right away as far as assumptions
go.

Also, added section on "Consideration of risks for node operators" where
the additional risk of should-be-3-but-actually-2 hop users pose to node
operators is discussed. Upon consideration of this, determined that two hop
users should be made to rotate guards with some frequency on the order of
days (basically, long enough to help scan the network for active adversary
guards, and then move on).

Please re-flame if you feel these or other issues have not been adequately
addressed.

svn:r10498
doc/spec/proposals/115-two-hop-paths.txt