Closed martinthomson closed 1 year ago
This is entirely appropriate given the nature of the reference. This is a reference to a paper, not a specification for Tor, so using "[TOR]" could be misleading.
It's possible that we could cite a specification, but it's really hard to pin that down properly. https://torproject.gitlab.io/torspec/tor-spec.html seems right, but it doesn't bear a date and appears to be a rendering from https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/plain/tor-spec.txt which is in turn just a snapshot (currently https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt?id=f16803f6f93680f41f72bae29cf9dbef3962f94d). Aside from referential stability, the specification is less of a useful reference as it says less about what Tor is and gets buried in detail.
I'm inclined to leave as-is, or switch to "[DMS2004]" to reference all author's names.
ok
Comment by @paulwouters
Using "[Dingledine2004]" as description identifier for TOR is a bit weird :P