From: Roger Dingledine <arma@torproject.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:09:10 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: and dirservers are better for non-clique situations
X-Git-Tag: tor-0.0.2pre14~182
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=d59864859cab73ff264c0f520d04dae3150058a5;p=thirdparty%2Ftor.git

and dirservers are better for non-clique situations


svn:r668
---

diff --git a/doc/tor-design.tex b/doc/tor-design.tex
index f5ea21b688..632ea92381 100644
--- a/doc/tor-design.tex
+++ b/doc/tor-design.tex
@@ -679,11 +679,14 @@ the shared directory is straightforward, and is described in the Tor
 specification \cite{tor-spec}.
 % we should, uh, add this to the spec. oh, and write it. -RD
 
-Because the directories are signed, they can be cached at all the other
-onion routers (or even elsewhere). Thus directory servers are not a
-performance bottleneck when we have many users, and also they won't
-aid traffic analysis by forcing clients to periodically announce their
-existence to any central point.
+Using directory servers rather than flooding approaches provides
+simplicity and flexibility. For example, they don't complicate
+the analysis when we start experimenting with non-clique network
+topologies. And because the directories are signed, they can be cached at
+all the other onion routers (or even elsewhere). Thus directory servers
+are not a performance bottleneck when we have many users, and also they
+won't aid traffic analysis by forcing clients to periodically announce
+their existence to any central point.
 
 \Section{Rendezvous points: location privacy}
 \label{sec:rendezvous}