Skip to content
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.

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

Implement rendezvous protocol spec #1

Open
wants to merge 48 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Implement rendezvous protocol spec #1

wants to merge 48 commits into from

Conversation

vyzo
Copy link
Contributor

@vyzo vyzo commented Apr 24, 2018

Implementation of spec in libp2p/specs#44

Provides Client, Service, and Database for attaching and using rendezvous points in libp2p hosts and the necessary hooks for implementing federated rendezvous daemons out of package.

TBD:

  • docstrings
  • vendor sqlite in gx
  • README
  • CI

vyzo added 30 commits April 18, 2018 18:30
It's DiscoverOnce and Discover instead of Discover and DiscoverAsync
- instead of returning PeerInfos, return Registration objects in discovery
- provide utility functions at module level for peer info discovery
@bigs bigs added discussion and removed discussion labels Sep 4, 2018
@bigs
Copy link

bigs commented Sep 4, 2018

@whyrusleeping @vyzo how's this issue doing? i'd be happy to review it thursday.

@vyzo
Copy link
Contributor Author

vyzo commented Sep 5, 2018

Review would be nice, I plan to restart work on it soonish -- see the further work comment.

@raulk
Copy link
Member

raulk commented Feb 6, 2019

Hey @vyzo – wondering what you have in mind as a path forward here. Is this implementation already 100% compliant with our flashy new Rendezvous spec?

@vyzo
Copy link
Contributor Author

vyzo commented Feb 6, 2019

@raulk yes, it's 100% compatible with the spec. It needs rate limiting to emit the E_UNAVAILABLE response though and I need to figure out how to do federation (although the federated daemon will be a separate package).

@raulk
Copy link
Member

raulk commented Feb 6, 2019

@vyzo — cool. How about we figure out the error case and we merge this in marking it as EXPERIMENTAL? No point keeping it parked in a PR. We can then keep iterating on master.

@vyzo
Copy link
Contributor Author

vyzo commented Feb 6, 2019

I also want to work a bit on the stateful client, but we should be able to merge soon.

@vyzo
Copy link
Contributor Author

vyzo commented Feb 6, 2019

The federation can wait for the out of package daemon implementation.

@vyzo
Copy link
Contributor Author

vyzo commented Feb 6, 2019

I'll work a bit more on it this week.

@mikedoan
Copy link

@vyzo when are you expecting this will be checked in?

@vyzo
Copy link
Contributor Author

vyzo commented Feb 13, 2019

soon [TM]

@10d9e
Copy link

10d9e commented Jan 24, 2021

Is this in a place to be reviewed/merged @Stebalien @Kubuxu?

@mxinden
Copy link
Member

mxinden commented Jul 23, 2021

For anyone continuing this pull request, please note that the specification had multiple revisions in the meantime.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.