From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalizing feature negotiation when new p2p connections are setup
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:08:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhhrz8SMQ4bA6eD2VRwqmMEzVv7NmrD8kDnPfqJy092bKQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b6198e1a-c30b-358a-9673-247a7c305913@mattcorallo.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4018 bytes --]
Actually we already have service bits (which are sadly limited) which allow
negotiation of non bilateral feature support, so this would supercede that.
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:45 PM Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
wrote:
> This seems to be pretty overengineered. Do you have a specific use-case in
> mind for anything more than simply continuing
> the pattern we've been using of sending a message indicating support for a
> given feature? If we find some in the future,
> we could deploy something like this, though the current proposal makes it
> possible to do it on a per-feature case.
>
> The great thing about Suhas' proposal is the diff is about -1/+1 (not
> including tests), while still getting all the
> flexibility we need. Even better, the code already exists.
>
> Matt
>
> On 8/21/20 3:50 PM, Jeremy wrote:
> > I have a proposal:
> >
> > Protocol >= 70016 cease to send or process VERACK, and instead use
> HANDSHAKEACK, which is completed after feature
> > negotiation.
> >
> > This should make everyone happy/unhappy, as in a new protocol number
> it's fair game to change these semantics to be
> > clear that we're acking more than version.
> >
> > I don't care about when or where these messages are sequenced overall,
> it seems to have minimal impact. If I had free
> > choice, I slightly agree with Eric that verack should come before
> feature negotiation, as we want to divorce the idea
> > that protocol number and feature support are tied.
> >
> > But once this is done, we can supplant Verack with HANDSHAKENACK or
> HANDSHAKEACK to signal success or failure to agree
> > on a connection. A NACK reason (version too high/low or an important
> feature missing) could be optional. Implicit NACK
> > would be disconnecting, but is discouraged because a peer doesn't know
> if it should reconnect or the failure was
> > intentional.
> >
> > ------
> >
> > AJ: I think I generally do prefer to have a FEATURE wrapper as you
> suggested, or a rule that all messages in this period
> > are interpreted as features (and may be redundant with p2p message types
> -- so you can literally just use the p2p
> > message name w/o any data).
> >
> > I think we would want a semantic (which could be based just on message
> names, but first-class support would be nice) for
> > ACKing that a feature is enabled. This is because a transcript of:
> >
> > NODE0:
> > FEATURE A
> > FEATURE B
> > VERACK
> >
> > NODE1:
> > FEATURE A
> > VERACK
> >
> > It remains unclear if Node 1 ignored B because it's an unknown feature,
> or because it is disabled. A transcript like:
> >
> > NODE0:
> > FEATURE A
> > FEATURE B
> > FEATURE C
> > ACK A
> > VERACK
> >
> > NODE1:
> > FEATURE A
> > ACK A
> > NACK B
> > VERACK
> >
> > would make it clear that A and B are known, B is disabled, and C is
> unknown. C has 0 support, B Node 0 should support
> > inbound messages but knows not to send to Node 1, and A has full
> bilateral support. Maybe instead it could a message
> > FEATURE SEND A and FEATURE RECV A, so we can make the split explicit
> rather than inferred from ACK/NACK.
> >
> >
> > ------
> >
> > I'd also propose that we add a message which is SYNC, which indicates
> the end of a list of FEATURES and a request to
> > send ACKS or NACKS back (which are followed by a SYNC). This allows
> multi-round negotiation where based on the presence
> > of other features, I may expand the set of features I am offering. I
> think you could do without SYNC, but there are more
> > edge cases and the explicitness is nice given that this already
> introduces future complexity.
> >
> > This multi-round makes it an actual negotiation rather than a pure
> announcement system. I don't think it would be used
> > much in the near term, but it makes sense to define it correctly now.
> Build for the future and all...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin><
> https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5241 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-21 21:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-14 19:28 Suhas Daftuar
2020-08-16 17:24 ` Jeremy
2020-08-16 19:06 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-17 20:40 ` Suhas Daftuar
2020-08-17 21:21 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-20 14:13 ` David A. Harding
2020-08-18 14:59 ` Matt Corallo
2020-08-18 16:54 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-18 17:26 ` Matt Corallo
2020-08-18 18:11 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-18 18:25 ` Matt Corallo
2020-08-18 18:56 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-21 2:36 ` Anthony Towns
2020-08-21 4:25 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-21 14:15 ` lf-lists
2020-08-21 16:42 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-21 19:50 ` Jeremy
2020-08-21 20:45 ` Matt Corallo
2020-08-21 21:08 ` Jeremy [this message]
2020-08-21 21:17 ` Jeremy
2020-08-21 22:16 ` Matt Corallo
2020-08-23 17:49 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-24 9:44 ` Suhas Daftuar
2020-08-24 13:59 ` G. Andrew Stone
2020-08-24 19:58 ` Jeremy
2020-08-24 20:17 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-24 20:21 ` Jeremy
2020-08-24 20:33 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-21 21:17 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-23 17:45 ` Eric Voskuil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAD5xwhhrz8SMQ4bA6eD2VRwqmMEzVv7NmrD8kDnPfqJy092bKQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox