16:59:41 <ahf> #startmeeting network team meeting, 28th of june 2021
16:59:41 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Jun 28 16:59:41 2021 UTC.  The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:59:41 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:59:47 <ahf> hello hello
16:59:54 <asn> hi
16:59:55 <ahf> our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2021.1-keep
17:00:09 <dgoulet> yello
17:00:12 <juga> o/
17:00:41 <nickm> hihi!
17:00:59 <nickm> I am listening in on a board meeting on headphones, and though I will try to keep my attention here, I may be distracted :)
17:01:28 <ahf> we can bridge the meetings so the board can look at our kanban boards ;-P
17:01:34 <ahf> how is everybody doing with their boards?
17:01:49 <GeKo> o/
17:01:58 <nickm> I think I'm ok
17:02:29 <asn> me too
17:02:37 <ahf> yeah, i think so too
17:03:26 <ahf> don't see anything altered on the release milestone lists
17:04:40 <ahf> nickm have asked for help with zcash+arti kickoff agenda
17:04:49 <ahf> is this correct that it is from today? something unrelated from last week?
17:06:36 <ahf> maybe we can do the s61 stuff now then return to these two items after - maybe board meeting is ahead at that time
17:06:42 <ahf> mikeperry: you wanna do s61 sync?
17:06:53 <mikeperry> kk
17:07:26 <mikeperry> I have been working on congestion control still, have a list of spec updates, updated the branch to use consensus parameters
17:07:35 <mikeperry> been mostly focusing on that
17:08:05 <mikeperry> this chunk will be ready for review soon.. dgoulet has been looking at it, but I guess he goes on vacation at the end of the week
17:08:08 <ahf> exciting!
17:08:30 <ahf> i looked at the code from the week before last week, but haven't seen all your updates yet
17:08:46 <mikeperry> I took a look at nickm's ntor-v3 - looks good, but we need to decide what happens if the endpoints disagree on if they uhould use old sendme or the new stuff
17:09:10 * asn will be taking a look at it this week too
17:09:13 <ahf> shouldn't it be an ordered priority list?
17:09:23 <ahf> so they reach consensus about the mutual best version?
17:09:27 <nickm> "it's complicated"
17:09:33 <ahf> ok
17:09:51 <nickm> though they can't actually disagree unless the client gets a list of protovers that is incorrect
17:10:17 <mikeperry> wrt the complete system, I am thinking the three pieces for merge will be 1) the algs themselves, with unit tests, but not negotiation and no ability to be enabled
17:10:32 <mikeperry> 2) new flow control for streams
17:10:45 <mikeperry> 3) actual negotiation and enabled code
17:11:29 <ahf> sounds reasonable to me
17:12:19 <mikeperry> I have a ticket to also update prop#324 for part 1
17:12:27 <mikeperry> https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/issues/56
17:13:14 <mikeperry> the congestion control code will enable us to use it over single onions for sbws. I believe we're planning on talking about that on thursday?
17:13:21 <mikeperry> if asn and dgoulet can make that
17:13:45 <mikeperry> https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/network-health/sbws/-/issues/40022 is that ticket
17:13:58 <dgoulet> as long as I get a time for that meeting, chances will increase I can make it ;)
17:14:22 <mikeperry> well can we use the 15utc time on thursday?
17:14:36 <dgoulet> ah the BBB sync?
17:14:53 <mikeperry> juga - that will work for you, yeah?
17:15:55 <juga> yes
17:16:53 <ahf> good idea to do it in the netteam sync
17:18:02 <ahf> more things in s61?
17:18:11 <mikeperry> ok. I guess we will plan for that then
17:18:22 <mikeperry> Geko,juga: anything more?
17:19:05 <GeKo> we got back on track with the sbws transition: bastet's bwauth is running sbws again
17:19:10 <ahf> \o/
17:19:20 <mikeperry> yay
17:19:25 <juga> yup, nothing else from my side
17:19:29 <GeKo> i think we believe we have fixed all blockers for a wider transition (again)
17:19:44 <GeKo> so let's see if it sticks this time
17:19:56 <GeKo> nothing else worth mentioning here imo
17:20:11 <ahf> sweet
17:20:29 <ahf> nickm: you had some discussion items - ready for doing those now?
17:20:42 <nickm> yup!
17:20:51 <ahf> 2021-06-28 [nickm] Need help with agenda for zcash+arti kickoff
17:20:52 <ahf> 2021-06-28 [nickm] Should I put out a new 0.4.6.x?
17:20:56 <nickm> First one: I'm doing a kickoff on
17:21:18 <nickm> wednesday, at 2000 UTC, for a bunch of zcash people.  We've asked them to invite other zcash people.
17:21:29 <gaba> nickm: this is a not-public kickoff with zcash devs, right?
17:21:29 <nickm> I don't know who else we have attending from the tor side, or how much help I'll need
17:21:32 <nickm> right
17:21:53 <gaba> after that zcash devs and others can attend the regular arti syncs
17:21:58 <ahf> have you asked them what they hope to get out of it?
17:22:07 <ahf> i assume it's a high level overview of what arti will be and some q&a?
17:22:41 <nickm> I'm hoping to do a quick overview, and talk about what kind of collaboration people want to do, w focus on what we need and what they need
17:22:53 <dgoulet> wait, I thought our arti syncs where made public through recordings, but now we open them to the public :| &?
17:23:26 <nickm> dgoulet: I am not clear exactly, but this is not about one of those.
17:23:36 <nickm> this is about a different meeting, for zcash devs
17:23:37 <dgoulet> 13:22 <+gaba> after that zcash devs and others can attend the regular arti syncs
17:23:40 <gaba> this one is only with zcash devs
17:24:03 <gaba> dgoulet: im thinking that people will be able to attend the arti syncs. maybe i misunderstood what we decided
17:24:39 <gaba> line 45 in http://kfahv6wfkbezjyg4r6mlhpmieydbebr5vkok5r34ya464gqz6c44bnyd.onion/p/arti-meeting-pad-keep
17:25:13 <ahf> i think the conversation around it was both: people could join if they had an interesting in arti develpoment and the meetings are recorded
17:25:19 <gaba> yes
17:25:22 <dgoulet> huh
17:25:22 <ahf> s/interesting/interest/
17:25:22 <gaba> that is what i understood
17:25:39 <dgoulet> ok, I guess
17:26:13 <dgoulet> I really do NOT see the possibility of anything productive if we open this to the public and end up with dozens of people but I won't argue much
17:26:17 <ahf> and we of course evaluate as we go if it makes sense or the format needs to change, as always :-)
17:26:38 <ahf> i doubt we'll get dozens of people who will deroute things. if that happens, we'll have to reevaluate of course
17:26:44 <nickm> I think that the right way to make it public is one step at a time...
17:26:56 <nickm> and if it goes stupid, we can back off
17:26:58 <ahf> if that was a concern, i think we would see much more derailing in our general irc conversations
17:26:58 <gaba> dgoulet: we can have an agenda and facilitate but we can change in the future if this is not working
17:26:59 <ahf> yeah
17:27:10 <nickm> Right now I'm hoping I can get help with the thing on Wednesday at 2000.
17:27:26 <gaba> nickm: what kind of help you need?
17:27:47 <ahf> wednesday evening for me is bad this week :-/
17:29:08 <nickm> I'm hoping to have somebody outline an agenda, and ideally attend with me
17:29:15 <nickm> s/outline/help outline/
17:30:19 <gaba> nickm: I will be attending with you.
17:30:56 <nickm> ok, thanks!
17:31:10 <ahf> ok, the 2nd item?
17:31:13 <ahf> 0.4.6.x
17:31:43 <nickm> yup.  I can do a release this week to fix the tor#40410 issue, if we think it's warranted
17:32:25 <ahf> have any of the porters decided to wait for a release rather than just applying the patch?
17:32:36 <ahf> trying to figure out f it's urgent to do the release or not
17:33:03 <nickm> dunno; what is debian doing?
17:33:23 <ahf> probably rolling back to tor 0.0.2
17:33:24 * ahf looks
17:34:09 <ahf> experimental have
17:34:35 <ahf> so it could be they haven't picked up the new one
17:35:53 <ahf> asked weasel in #tor-dev now
17:36:07 <ahf> if packagers aren't picking it up, then it makes sense to roll a release i think
17:36:22 <nickm> ok
17:36:30 <nickm> probably won't get to it today, maybe wednesday :/
17:37:36 <ahf> ok, sounds good
17:37:41 <ahf> do we have anything else for today's meeting?
17:37:47 <dgoulet> I do have a questions
17:37:56 <ahf> ok
17:39:03 <dgoulet> with regards to arti, we did a kickoff last week but personally (not sure about others so really just include me here) I'm still extremely blurry on any next steps. One example is I'm not even sure what we'll talk about next week for instance?
17:39:21 <dgoulet> and so are there follow-ups planned on our side?
17:39:54 <ahf> i think the next follow up will be the kick off this week while we talked about last week that we over the next few weeks begins to pick up on the different areas we each was intersted in looking into for arti
17:39:57 <dgoulet> is it "David, just start coding?"
17:39:58 <ahf> that is in the pad we made
17:40:19 <ahf> iirc, you were intersted in diving into circuit isolation and a couple of other items?
17:40:33 <dgoulet> the pad I see is: "Everybody should be doing some arti."
17:40:39 <dgoulet> (or its summary)
17:41:16 <ahf> yeah
17:41:31 <ahf> at the end of the meeting last week we looked at what things people are interested in as well
17:41:35 <dgoulet> well I'm trying to say that this is not very helpful to me
17:41:47 <ahf> ah
17:41:59 <dgoulet> ok so I should just start doing the thing I'm interested in?
17:42:04 <ahf> hm. then it sounds like we do need to put our heads together and get a bit more concrete?
17:42:18 <nickm> dgoulet: so, I asked asn when he'd want to start and he said some time next week he might have time, and we could pair then
17:42:24 <nickm> dgoulet: maybe we should pair when you
17:42:32 <ahf> yeah, i think that was the idea, but if people need help with getting started we should figure that out
17:42:32 <nickm> 're ready, and we can talk about what to start on?
17:43:42 <dgoulet> ok so seems "just go for it and start" is the answer
17:43:56 <nickm> Unless you want to chat a little first about what to start on, yeah
17:44:13 <dgoulet> maybe, I first need to find time for this at the moment so we'll see
17:44:17 <ahf> that was my thought when we left the meeting, but with slow ramp up over the next few weeks where we talk together (and probably all talk with nickm directly about the things we want to do)
17:46:19 <ahf> dgoulet: yeah, it sounded like last week that everybody needed some time to begin to look at this and wont switch over right away
17:47:09 <ahf> anything else for today?
17:47:13 <dgoulet> well
17:47:16 <dgoulet> that is the very part that I'm confused about
17:47:39 <dgoulet> but I won't hold up more this meeting
17:47:58 <nickm> dgoulet: maybe if you can put it as a question?
17:48:16 <nickm> i don't understand what you're asking
17:48:23 <nickm> (we can talk more after the meeting if you want)
17:48:38 <dgoulet> sure
17:48:40 <ahf> dgoulet: i am not sure i understand what you are asking then. people have a period of time now to figure out what they are doing now, ramping some of the things down, and begin looking into arti things
17:48:53 <ahf> there is no grand plan for how everybody does that i think
17:49:00 <dgoulet> ok
17:49:25 <dgoulet> I think what I'm trying to express here is that the lack of structure for next steps with arti considering we did a kickoff is confusing me
17:49:44 <ahf> but the idea is that for example: finishing things we are working on, potentially stretching some things we thought would take some time to take double the time, and so on
17:50:02 <dgoulet> because it is just "see what you can do, start picking it up if you can" but I do not see anything in that idea that will make me have more time to start this
17:50:11 <ahf> hm, ok, it sounds like we should sync about that then. maybe we left the meeting with different feelings to this - i left feeling like i had an idea about what things to begin looking at
17:50:25 <ahf> ah! so the ramping down part is confusing?
17:50:42 <ahf> gaba and me can probably help with that. i also have no clue how to do that with some of the sponsors i have right now
17:51:22 <dgoulet> yeah basically, seems we have this grand dream with arti but _nothing_ about reaching it from other devs perspective other than nickm
17:51:28 <jnewsome> ahf: kinda same issue here, but I think you're already aware of that :)
17:51:48 <ahf> ok, sounds like we need to put our heads together 8)
17:51:52 <dgoulet> sounds good
17:51:52 <ahf> jnewsome: ya
17:52:19 <ahf> when can we do that? on thursday netteam meeting? i don't think this is something we need to create a new meeting for?
17:52:27 <ahf> it might be a bit more than an hour then if we also have the s61 items there
17:52:40 * gaba reading backlog... had to switch places
17:52:54 <dgoulet> yeah probably Thu. is fine
17:53:02 <ahf> ok
17:53:03 <dgoulet> we might spill over the hour though
17:53:24 <ahf> ya
17:53:59 <ahf> ok, we are almost at the hour, it sounds like we have a plan for untangling this, but haven't solved it yet
17:54:06 <ahf> anything else to look at now?
17:55:07 <gaba> nothing from me
17:55:14 <ahf> i take that as a no - see you all on the other irc channels
17:55:16 <ahf> #endmeeting