From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>,
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 16:45:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b6198e1a-c30b-358a-9673-247a7c305913@mattcorallo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhi9zVp3nOhFy3Hia_Md++Gdz+F5Kat_bbbZwBcmPhMGZA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-21 20:45 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 [this message]
2020-08-21 21:08 ` Jeremy
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=b6198e1a-c30b-358a-9673-247a7c305913@mattcorallo.com \
--to=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=eric@voskuil$(echo .)org \
--cc=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
/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