and i would like a pony.
Roger Dingledine

Roger Dingledine commited on 2005-09-22 07:27:42
Zeige 1 geänderte Dateien mit 12 Einfügungen und 1 Löschungen.

... ...
@@ -123,7 +123,8 @@ for details.</li>
123 123
 <h2>Documentation</h2>
124 124
 <ol>
125 125
 <li>Please volunteer to help maintain this website: code, content,
126
-css, layout.</li>
126
+css, layout. Step one is to hang out on the IRC channel until we
127
+get to know you.</li>
127 128
 <li>We have too much documentation --- it's spread out too much and
128 129
 duplicates itself in places. Please send us patches, pointers, and
129 130
 confusions about the documentation so we can clean it up.</li>
... ...
@@ -134,6 +135,9 @@ maintain the existing (Italian and German) translations.</li>
134 135
 <li>Investigate privoxy vs. freecap vs. sockscap for win32 clients. Are
135 136
 there usability or stability issues that we can track down and
136 137
 resolve, or at least inform people about?</li>
138
+<li>Can somebody help Matt Edman with the documentation and how-tos
139
+for his <a href="http://freehaven.net/~edmanm/torcp/">Windows Tor
140
+Controller</a>?
137 141
 <li>Evaluate, create, and <a
138 142
 href="http://wiki.noreply.org/wiki/TheOnionRouter/TorifyHOWTO">document
139 143
 a list of programs</a> that can be routed through Tor.</li>
... ...
@@ -208,6 +212,13 @@ getting credit when we put out a new release because of you!</li>
208 212
 <li>How hard is it to patch bind or a DNS proxy to redirect requests to
209 213
 Tor via our <a href="http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#CompatibleApplications">tor-resolve socks extension</a>? What about to convert UDP DNS
210 214
 requests to TCP requests and send them through Tor?</li>
215
+<li>Tor uses TCP for transport and TLS for link
216
+encryption. This is nice and simple, but it means all cells
217
+on a link are delayed when a single packet gets dropped, and
218
+it means we can only reasonably support TCP streams. We have a <a
219
+href="http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#TransportIPnotTCP">list
220
+of reasons why we haven't shifted to UDP transport</a>, but it would be
221
+great to see that list get shorter.
211 222
 <li>We're not that far from having IPv6 support for destination addresses
212 223
 (at exit nodes). If you care strongly about IPv6, that's probably the
213 224
 first place to start.</li>
214 225