16:58:59 <nickm> #startmeeting weekly network team meeting, 8 August 2018
16:58:59 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Aug  6 16:58:59 2018 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:58:59 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:59:03 <ahf> hello
16:59:07 <catalyst> hi
16:59:07 <asn> hello
16:59:13 <nickm> why hello there everybody!
16:59:37 <komlo> hello world :)
16:59:39 <nickm> ongoing pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2018.1-keep
17:00:33 <isabela> !
17:00:46 <isabela> why hello to you too
17:00:47 <isabela> :)
17:00:49 <nickm> and hello komlo and isabela !
17:01:07 <komlo> \o/
17:01:31 <nickm> So we start with the roadmap.  I sent around a roadmap revision pad last friday.  I think we're mostly _not_ going to be adding stuff by default, but we should still discuss.
17:01:42 <nickm> has everybody on network-team had a chance to look at that?
17:02:17 <mikeperry> no. is it still in the google doc?
17:02:30 <asn> i think it's https://pad.riseup.net/p/huDStrBDgqi5
17:02:34 <asn> havent had the time to read it yet
17:02:36 <nickm> see network-team email from 3 Aug. ... yeah, that
17:02:50 <nickm> (hi mikeperry !)
17:03:46 <nickm> mikeperry: a bunch of your items are in "maybe" on that pad because I didn't know the status; please let me know which are still planned for the deadline
17:03:53 <nickm> merge window for 035 closes on 15 Sep
17:05:20 <nickm> can everybody get to this today please? I'd like to revise the roadmap tomorrow or the day after, since I'm visiting inlaws thu->fri
17:05:26 <nickm> thu->mon
17:05:36 <ahf> ack
17:06:35 <nickm> nexst are the reviewer assignments
17:06:49 <nickm> this list is really stacking up.
17:07:07 <mikeperry> nickm: I'm going to try to get the WTF-PAD stuff in still, but it is not super essential that it is. it just has to be in better shape to experiment with by then.
17:07:33 <nickm> mikeperry: okay. do you have time to update the status on that pad?
17:08:04 <nickm> ahf, catalyst, mikeperry: some of your review items look like they've been there for a few weeks.  Are you stuck on anything? Anything the rest of us can do to help?  Should we rebalance?
17:08:53 <nickm> asn: will you be able to get to #27003 today? I don't know if I mentioned, but it is the only thing blocking
17:09:02 <asn> oh i didnt get that last part
17:09:13 <asn> let me ee the PR
17:09:14 <nickm> I probably forgot to say :/
17:09:26 <asn> if it's not too complex i might be able to do it
17:09:32 <nickm> thanks; it is pretty simple
17:09:38 <nickm> at least, the change is
17:09:45 <nickm> and ahf has already had a look
17:09:47 <ahf> nickm: no, i think it's good. i have already been through the ones that have been there for a while, just didn't get back to them last week
17:09:54 <nickm> I just want a "will it break the world" thing
17:09:56 <ahf> crunched some of the easy ones last week since the list got a bit big
17:10:22 <asn> ok will do
17:11:40 <catalyst> nickm: the NSS ones are still in progress; cross-compiling doc still has stuff to resolve
17:13:17 <nickm> On #26376, it looks like hello71 updated it 4 weeks ago; maybe reiterate whatever it is that still needs to be fixed and put it back in needs_revision?
17:13:56 <mikeperry> nickm: yeah for my reviews a couple of them have been going back and forth with needs_revision. I am going to go through them again today
17:13:58 <nickm> and #26464 is just siltting there
17:14:11 <nickm> mikeperry: thanks!
17:14:11 <catalyst> nickm: probably best if one of us just makes the edits at this point
17:14:22 <nickm> that would be fine too :)
17:14:28 <nickm> *sitting
17:14:52 <catalyst> nickm: i'm happy to have someone else review #26464 if they have time
17:15:03 <nickm> I'll take it on
17:15:28 <catalyst> thanks!
17:16:35 <nickm> next is rotations: I'm on bug triage, teor's community, ahf is meeting scheduling, and asn is CI+Coverity
17:16:54 <nickm> I don't have any community stuff to hand off, I'm afraid
17:17:06 <asn> ack
17:17:22 <nickm> the proposed ticket list, we're looking at as a part of the roadmap discussion (see above)
17:17:25 <ahf> i wrote a comment on that. if anybody is up for switching with my duties the next 3 weeks i'd be very happy for that
17:17:33 <ahf> i'm gona from wednesday until the 23rd
17:17:36 <ahf> gone*
17:17:52 <nickm> I love bug triage; I'll happily do an extra week of it next week.
17:19:03 <ahf> it's CH next week for me, bug triage in two weeks
17:19:04 <nickm> err, in 2 weeks
17:19:18 <ahf> do we need a replacement for the design docs person this week?
17:19:29 <nickm> i think it'll be ok
17:19:39 <ahf> ok, then it's just finding a CH person next week :-)
17:20:36 <nickm> ok, if nobody feels like it, we'll look next week
17:20:50 <ahf> ack, cool
17:21:13 <nickm> Let's see. We've done the next 2 discussion topics already (roadmap & reviews)
17:21:39 <nickm> teor asks about whether we can change the rotation schedule so that we're not always on 4 weeks in a row
17:21:50 <egypcio> gman999: ggus: sorry! I'm still at dayjob here and could not follow it as I wanted to. point haty here for me <:(
17:21:51 <nickm> I would be fine with that; any objections?
17:22:12 * ahf OK with that
17:23:03 * catalyst also ok with that
17:23:12 <nickm> How about I revise the schedule starting on 1 September?
17:23:24 <nickm> that will give us some warning time
17:23:59 <ahf> wfm
17:24:04 <catalyst> sure
17:24:10 <nickm> ok, if there are no objections let's do that
17:24:17 <nickm> on to other discussions!
17:24:26 <nickm> I already mentioned my stuff
17:24:32 <nickm> mikeperry: you have a few items!
17:24:37 <mikeperry> I have questions. yes :)
17:25:11 <mikeperry> so I have some deep discussion about RPs that we can move to #tor-dev later if people are still here
17:25:25 <nickm> let's do the short version of each :)
17:25:28 <mikeperry> but I also want to discuss #25573
17:25:39 <nickm> me too
17:26:06 <mikeperry> the short version of the RP thing is: do relays extend to anything you ask them to, or does it have to be in their consensus?
17:26:27 <nickm> oh. That one I answered on the pad, but asn might have more to say
17:26:33 <asn> no i agree with the pad answer
17:26:46 <asn> they will extedn to anything you ask them too because consensuses are not synchronized accross client
17:26:47 <asn> s
17:27:01 <mikeperry> so then the answer is "yes, you can ask a relay to extend to anything on the internet, and if it speaks Tor, it will work"?
17:27:06 <asn> yep
17:27:10 <asn> thats my understadning
17:27:16 <asn> it's a well-known anti-feature
17:27:31 <mikeperry> hrmm.. that's not great.. allows portscanning and makes my life harder..
17:28:06 <mikeperry> the deeper question of "what should I do about that" is deep. let's table that for after because there's a lot there
17:28:07 <nickm> if you want to change that, it will need a proposal and some tough analysis.
17:28:21 <nickm> ok
17:28:43 <asn> nickm: hey please let me know if it's ok to review #27003 tomorrow. it looks legit, but it's not as simple as i thought and i want to run a few tests to make sure.
17:29:44 <nickm> asn: okay. I don't like delaying the rc any more, but I sure don't want to release a broken rc :)
17:29:50 <nickm> so yeah, please run those tests
17:30:00 <nickm> mikeperry: what's the next topic?
17:30:09 <mikeperry> for #25573, it doesn't have to block 0.3.4-stable, but I would like a backport.. again, it doesn't change any behavior. it only changes what gets added to fields in CIRC_BW, and not beyond what the spec says (in fact, it brings it in line with what the spec says)
17:31:24 <mikeperry> so it can bake in master if we want. I just found instances where PATH_BIAS circs are also not being properly counted in CIRC_BW either. so I have another fixup for that branch..
17:31:26 <nickm> I'd say in that case: let's keep developing it against maint-0.3.4 so that a backport will be feasible if we do it...
17:31:56 <nickm> but let's let it cook in master first, and discuss a backport after it's had a review and some testing
17:31:59 <mikeperry> but it makes vanguards a *lot* less noisy with it in, hence it would be ideal if it is in 0.3.4 eventually
17:32:13 <nickm> or we could just say "vanguards should run 0.3.5 or later"
17:32:32 <asn> that's mainly for client-side vanguards right? perhaps we can ask client-side vanguards to run 035 or later?
17:32:43 <mikeperry> I would like to avoid that. it means it takes much longer to figure out how well these defenses work
17:32:58 <nickm> yes but you know why I am saying "let's be careful", right?
17:33:06 <mikeperry> asn: no there are instances where overloaded services can trigger the half-closed problem also..
17:33:17 <asn> hm ack
17:33:23 <mikeperry> nickm: I am not sure what the risk is, actually, other than like memory issues or something
17:33:47 <nickm> It is after freeze, 9 days before the scheduled release date, and you are asking me to merge a new feature of several hundred lines which nobody has reviewed yet.
17:34:24 <nickm> this code is spread across crucial functions in several files
17:34:37 <mikeperry> I don't see it as a feature. I see it as a bugfix of the spec, and of a feature that was in 0.3.4 from early enough on for us to find bugs in it
17:34:59 <nickm> I do see it as a feature.  It is adding code to track something Tor hasn't tracked before.
17:35:12 <nickm> It sounds like a good feature, mind you
17:35:13 <mikeperry> I see this as like refusing to take a bugfix in an 0.3.4 feature and disabling that feature instead.. which feels crummy because i tried hard to get this in as early as possible to find bugs like this
17:35:43 <mikeperry> (where that feature is "let the control port know what cells tor decided to drop" (and not even change behavior based on that)
17:36:26 <nickm> I am not proposing that we disable the feature
17:36:53 <mikeperry> like unless we're worried about memory leaks (which is legit, but that can happen with anything), I still don't see the risk..
17:37:25 <mikeperry> nickm: functionally that is what refusing to take this bugfix means. it means CIRC_BW is wrong, and can't be used in 0.3.4, which is akin to disabling it...
17:38:04 <mikeperry> I could put the whole thing behind a check to see if CIRC_BW events are being listened to
17:38:11 <mikeperry> which will further reduce risk of memory issues
17:38:12 <nickm> It doesn't seem like we're going to get this resolved right now.
17:38:27 <nickm> let's work on getting it reviewed and merged to master, than talk more later?
17:39:20 <nickm> I certainly do not want to advocate a meta-principle that "If somebody merges a feature early in a release cycle, then they can land arbitrarily big bugfixes for it arbitrarily late in the release cycle."
17:39:38 <nickm> But I don't think you're advocating for that; I think you're saying that this is in fact much simpler than it looks to me right now
17:39:53 <mikeperry> yes, the latter
17:40:18 <asn> im unable to comment on this rn because i dont even know what a half-closed stream is at this point
17:40:22 <asn> i need to check the paper
17:40:27 <mikeperry> and it could be made less risk if we want (like turning it off if CIRC_BW is not on), but that is also a different kind of complexity, I guess..
17:40:33 <nickm> then the right approach probably is to merge forward with review in 0.3.4 and merging in master and considering a backport afterwards.
17:40:34 <asn> hence i cant really comment on what the patch does
17:41:16 <nickm> Also we should figure out why this didnt' turn up in the original testing, so we can test the next thing better :)
17:42:19 <mikeperry> nickm: short answer wrt testing: I thought it didn't matter for service-side, only for clients, untill I heavily stress-tested a live service-side instance with it
17:42:27 <nickm> ok
17:42:48 <nickm> mikeperry: more discussion topics for this week?
17:43:16 <mikeperry> that's it for me. I will ask my RP detail questions in #tor-dev after
17:43:21 <nickm> ok
17:43:52 <nickm> catalyst: wrt prop#295 I'll send ashur a quick "hey did you see those" email today
17:44:10 <nickm> also catalyst has a question for mikeperry and komlo
17:44:29 <catalyst> nickm: thanks
17:44:54 <komlo> ah, just saw that q
17:45:02 <mikeperry> catalyst: yes. I think all three posts should link to eachother, too
17:45:18 <komlo> catalyst: sure, go for it- maybe link to the posts as well?
17:45:21 <mikeperry> related: I forgot I had a question about our research topics page. forgot about that one. who maintains that?
17:45:22 <komlo> +1
17:45:30 <catalyst> komlo, mikeperry: thanks!
17:45:32 <nickm> mikeperry: arma3 would know
17:46:16 <antonela> mikeperry: planning a meeting in Mexico about it -- could be part of the website redesign, after we finish the dev portal
17:46:17 <komlo> we had a comment on a post that we should have a "quick links" page, probably all three posts should be on that? along with others i don't know about
17:48:31 * nickm has just emailed tomer
17:48:42 <isabela> there is a section for research on the dev.tpo site
17:48:44 <nickm> any more discussion topics for today?
17:48:50 <mikeperry> antonela: ok. the material that needs to be replaced is currently on research.torproject.org, which may or may not be a different beast than a dev portal
17:49:24 <nickm> ahf: quick query for you btw.  When will there be some preliminary memory profiling data that we can start trying to improve?
17:49:25 <isabela> when we did the wireframes we spent some time with arma on it - maybe would be good to review that too
17:49:26 <komlo> just a quick note to think about outstanding Rust questions/issues we have- i'm going to send an email to aggregate these, and will try to get answers when I'm at RustConf
17:49:38 <antonela> mikeperry, isabela : yes! we want to sync on that content re: irl
17:49:57 <nickm> komlo: awesome! Make sure to give a timeline; I've already forgotten when rustconf is :/
17:49:59 <ahf> nickm: doubtful withh the current tasks i have for today and tomorrow :-/
17:50:37 <komlo> nickm: RustConf is the 16th/17th, so we have some time to prep. i'll send that email Wednesday hopefully
17:50:53 <nickm> ahf: ok. Can you make sure in that case that you leave the task in a state where dgoulet can pick it up once he's back?  Or will it need to wait till you return?
17:51:10 <ahf> nickm: he can pick it up from where we are now, we talked about it before he left
17:51:15 <nickm> In the latter event I think I'll split the roadmap item into "low hanging fruit" for 0.3.5 and "trickier stuff, if any" for 0.3.6
17:51:24 <nickm> oh. great!
17:51:29 <nickm> komlo: thanks!
17:51:33 <ahf> nickm: we actually talked about whether any of us would be able to make progress with this before we leave, because we left at different times
17:52:21 <nickm> 7 minutes left. any more topics for today?
17:53:23 <nickm> hearing none, I thank everybody, and proclaim the meeting adjourned!
17:53:32 <ahf> o/
17:53:35 <asn> thanks!
17:53:40 <nickm> thanks everyone!
17:53:42 <nickm> #endmeeting