On 5 Jan 2016, at 19:33, Tom van der Woerdt <info@tvdw.eu> wrote:

...
Op 05/01/16 om 02:15 schreef Tim Wilson-Brown - teor:

On 5 Jan 2016, at 11:29, Tom van der Woerdt <info@tvdw.eu
<mailto:info@tvdw.eu>> wrote:
...
2.1. Exit flagging

By replacing the port 6667 (IRC) entry with a port 5222 (XMPP) entry,
Exit
flags can no longer be assigned to relays that exit only to unencrypted
ports.

One consequence of this proposal is that relays that only exit to 443
and 6667 will lose the Exit flag.
But these relays do exit to an encrypted port, so this somewhat
contradicts the goal of the proposal:
"Exit flags can no longer be assigned to relays that exit only to
unencrypted ports."

...

(tlcr: any relay that currently holds an Exit flag and allows exiting to
443 and 6667, but not 80 or 5222.)

tiggersWeltTor1 Bandwidth=2600
smallegyptrela01 Bandwidth=22

These two relays will be impacted, indeed.

Why not make the rule: "at least one of 80/6667, and at least one of
443/5222".

Also sounds good to me. I opted for the smallest possible change
(6667->5222) but what you're suggesting lgtm.

I am also concerned about the choice of XMMP "because the XMPP protocol
is slowly gaining popularity within the
communities on the internet".
Shouldn't we focus on secure protocols that are widely used right now?

Alternately, we could add other widely used SSL ports in addition to
XMMP, and perhaps increase the rule to "at least two SSL ports".

Imho the challenge is in finding port number(s) that accurately reflect
what Tor is for, while also having a sufficiently large user base for it
to be relevant. XMPP probably has more users than IRC, and is a good
match for what I think Tor would consider important (communication).
Also note that we now have Tor Messenger. Other protocols (SSH, IMAP,
POP3, SMTP) are indeed more popular but I feel that those less reflect
the goals of the project, and they are certainly abused more.