update the todo, primarily with bridge-related stuff but

also list some dirserv behaviors we should document


svn:r10606

doc/TODO

@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ N   . Document transport and natdport
       o In man page
       - In a good HOWTO.
 
+Things we'd like to do in 0.2.0.x:
       - Update dir-spec with decisions made on these issues:
-
         o clients don't log as loudly when they receive them
         o they don't count toward the 3-strikes rule
           D But eventually, we give up after getting a lot of 503s.
@@ -53,9 +53,11 @@ N   . Document transport and natdport
         D They can 503 client descriptor requests when they feel like it.
           How can they distinguish? Not implemented for now, maybe
           should abandon.
-        - update dir-spec with what we decided for each of these
+        - describe our 302 not modified behaviors.
+        - and document a bit more -- e.g. it looks like we return an empty
+          200 OK when somebody asks us for a networkstatus and we don't
+          have it?
 
-Things we'd like to do in 0.2.0.x:
   - Proposals:
     . 101: Voting on the Tor Directory System (plus 103)
       o Prepare ASAP for new voting formats
@@ -210,15 +212,11 @@ Things we'd like to do in 0.2.0.x:
       - Write a proposal
     - Bridges users (rudimentary version)
       o Ability to specify bridges manually
-      - cache of bridges that we've learned about and use but aren't
-        manually listed in the torrc.
-        D and some mechanism for specifying that we want to stop using
-          a given bridge in this cache.
-      . Config option 'UseBridges' that bridge users can turn on.
-        - uses bridges as first hop rather than entry guards.
-      D Do we want to maintain our own set of entryguards that we use
-        after the bridge? Open research question; let's say no for 0.2.0
-        unless we learn otherwise.
+      o Config option 'UseBridges' that bridge users can turn on.
+        o uses bridges as first hop rather than entry guards.
+      D Do we want to maintain our own set of entryguards that we use as
+        next hop after the bridge? Open research question; let's say no
+        for 0.2.0 unless we learn otherwise.
       o if you don't have any routerinfos for your bridges, or you don't
         like the ones you have, ask a new bridge for its server/authority.
       . Ask all directory questions to bridge via BEGIN_DIR.
@@ -226,9 +224,13 @@ Things we'd like to do in 0.2.0.x:
 N     - Design/implement the "local-status" or something like it, from the
         "Descriptor purposes: how to tell them apart" section of
         http://archives.seul.org/or/dev/May-2007/msg00008.html
+        - cache of bridges that we've learned about and use but aren't
+          manually listed in the torrc.
+          D and some mechanism for specifying that we want to stop using
+            a given bridge in this cache.
       - timeout and retry schedules for fetching bridge descriptors
       - give extend_info_t a router_purpose again
-      - react faster to download networkstatuses after the first bridge
+      o react faster to download networkstatuses after the first bridge
         descriptor arrives
       - be more robust to bridges being marked as down and leaving us
         stranded without any known "running" bridges.
@@ -238,6 +240,7 @@ N     - Design/implement the "local-status" or something like it, from the
       - Fix BEGIN_DIR so that you connect to bridge of which you only
         know IP (and optionally fingerprint), and then use BEGIN_DIR to learn
         more about it.
+      - look at server_mode() and decide if it always applies to bridges too.
     - Bridges authorities (rudimentary version)
       o Rudimentary "do not publish networkstatus" option for bridge
         authorities.