1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BA5C0051
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:15:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BB786BA5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:15:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id KTEIt79y1AkS
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:15:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99])
by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2E9E86B81
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:15:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FD312F09CA;
Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:15:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com;
s=1598017264; t=1598019311;
bh=D/kFa2yIIiEyqS2x9VoPc4mIhLFs0OCIR4qp0lql/sQ=;
h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From;
b=YZeoJI3jTwlFB5DBfHxNcTAF1ho2Z6L0XBdgdmNMactlPxBXtEfZcJGsKtPeGVmIC
CS+sdTMWvnD+GkCuwCZzdSDoYq68X/7tkOp6B3Ojz7Y48xQbpWh5TeYpNOhvdQua9m
ztwZRj5jo8HGjM4rW4ToPP+ELtQJoaZOJdALsQGUMoITMlzppbyEteQ2fpk7XE7I1H
6bO6tA0l1Kz11XI8tEAFlTep7Gr5B3t3cN6cZdqTc8FmtuDZvO2t3PEZJhhA0NUkU6
TOWW6jgz3hno9mssTcaMMtTGU39MQ9yugBvevw/hJcKjjgnFpfN9Pksfwe0NlkFELo
ruFjVW5mSoBRA==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: lf-lists@mattcorallo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:15:10 -0400
Message-Id: <A26FA2BC-50E5-4635-95E4-56AAA969C9DA@mattcorallo.com>
References: <20200821023647.7eat4goqqrtaqnna@erisian.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20200821023647.7eat4goqqrtaqnna@erisian.com.au>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalizing feature negotiation when new p2p
connections are setup
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:15:14 -0000
Sure, we could do a new message for negotiation, but there doesn=E2=80=99t s=
eem to be a lot of reason for it - using the same namespace for negotiation s=
eems fine too. In any case, this is one of those things that doesn=E2=80=99t=
matter in the slightest, and if one person volunteers to write a BIP and co=
de, no reason they shouldn=E2=80=99t just decide and be allowed to run with i=
t. Rough consensus and running code, as it were :)
Matt
> On Aug 20, 2020, at 22:37, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 03:28:41PM -0400, Suhas Daftuar via bitco=
in-dev wrote:
>> In thinking about the mechanism used there, I thought it would be helpful=
to
>> codify in a BIP the idea that Bitcoin network clients should ignore unkno=
wn
>> messages received before a VERACK. A draft of my proposal is available h=
ere
>> [2].
>=20
> Rather than allowing arbitrary messages, maybe it would make sense to
> have a specific feature negotiation message, eg:
>=20
> VERSION ...
> FEATURE wtxidrelay
> FEATURE packagerelay
> VERACK
>=20
> with the behaviour being that it's valid only between VERSION and VERACK,
> and it takes a length-prefixed-string giving the feature name, optional
> additional data, and if the feature name isn't recognised the message
> is ignored.
>=20
> If we were to support a "polite disconnect" feature like Jeremy suggested,=
> it might be easier to do that for a generic FEATURE message, than
> reimplement it for the message proposed by each new feature.
>=20
> Cheers,
> aj
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
