Skip to content

Add a transport code to indicate content is provided via Trustless HTTP Gateway #321

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
rvagg merged 4 commits into from
Apr 18, 2023
Merged

Add a transport code to indicate content is provided via Trustless HTTP Gateway #321

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
37b8517
Add a transport code to indicate content is provided via car
willscott Mar 20, 2023
a5eaef2
update name per review
willscott Apr 6, 2023
3a8bf03
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into feat/transport-gate…
willscott Apr 6, 2023
47d5272
update transport description
willscott Apr 12, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions table.csv
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ car-index-sorted, serialization, 0x0400, draft, CARv2
car-multihash-index-sorted, serialization, 0x0401, draft, CARv2 MultihashIndexSorted index format
transport-bitswap, transport, 0x0900, draft, Bitswap datatransfer
transport-graphsync-filecoinv1, transport, 0x0910, draft, Filecoin graphsync datatransfer
transport-gateway-trustless, transport, 0x0920, draft, HTTP car datatransfer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@masih masih Mar 30, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With "gateway" in the name, am i right to assume this is for car transfer over IPFS HTTP gateway?
If so, would it make sense to include ipfs in the name?

Suggested change
transport-gateway-trustless, transport, 0x0920, draft, HTTP car datatransfer
transport-ipfs-gateway-trustless, transport, 0x0920, draft, HTTP IPFS Gateway CAR datatransfer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@rvagg rvagg Mar 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, if we view this namespace as having a very broad audience, making the assumption that "gateway" bears the singular meaning we think it does isn't appropriate
+1

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@aschmahmann aschmahmann Mar 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why would you restrict this to CAR?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@willscott willscott Mar 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@masih - i would be okay including ipfs here if there aren't objections

@rvagg - some more specific features could be passed in metadata about the transport - in the same way we specify characteristics for graphsync we could potentially allow advertisements of http support further specify what subset of the gateway specification is supported. That said, I'd hope that as we get to a single definition from https://specs.ipfs.tech/http-gateways/path-gateway/#ref-trustless-gateway we might be able to converge to an expected set of semantics for what is expected from an http transport.

@aschmahmann - do you mean versus also including single blocks, or versus also including unverifiable responses?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@aschmahmann aschmahmann Apr 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do you mean versus also including single blocks, or versus also including unverifiable responses?

I meant single blocks

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@aschmahmann aschmahmann Apr 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note: I would prefer knowing what this thing actually is before we merge it as it seems like there are a bunch of unknowns as to what this actually means/how it will be used and the point of the shared table is to enable interoperability (if it wasn't then people could just have system-specific enums and call it a day).

If the desire of the crowd here is to merge this PR before there are any definitions I'd like to request that the entry be removed from the table should it arise that this entry turns out to be abandoned or there is no definition of it in X (maybe 3 or as high as 6?) months.

No we haven't held other entries to this bar (especially the really old ones), but it'd be nice if we could do better going forward here and it doesn't seem like a huge ask that more than the people involved in this PR would be able to figure out what is meant by a the code being added to the table.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@willscott willscott Apr 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can change the comment to
HTTP IPFS Gateway trustless datatransfer
is there other wording at this stage you would propose / prefer?

I'm happy to re-visit in 3-6 months to
(a) remove if we aren't using it
(b) revising wording to reflect / point to the specification we've ended up with

multidid, multiformat, 0x0d1d, draft, Compact encoding for Decentralized Identifers
sha2-256-trunc254-padded, multihash, 0x1012, permanent, SHA2-256 with the two most significant bits from the last byte zeroed (as via a mask with 0b00111111) - used for proving trees as in Filecoin
sha2-224, multihash, 0x1013, permanent, aka SHA-224; as specified by FIPS 180-4.
Expand Down