You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When introducing and rolling out new types, we might encounter multiaddresses that we don't understand yet. We should define a string representation so people can pass them around in JSON (for example).
One option would be to use multibase (and assuming you're using a multibase that your peer understands):
/unparsable/<multibase encoded bytes>
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We should probably specify that we should only serialize to a small set of multibases (e.g. only base32). Otherwise, we'll have the same problem here where I can serialize it using baseN and someone else trying to parse that string may not know baseN.
As long as producers (serializers) are strict in what they emit and consumers (deserializers/parsers) are lax (accept any known multibase) we can upgrade the small set of supported multibases. Although, my initial guess is that we probably will not expand the initial set for a while.
No particularly strong opinions on which ones should be in the MUST or SHOULD set, although I'd certainly consider using ones already in use by other multiaddr components.
When introducing and rolling out new types, we might encounter multiaddresses that we don't understand yet. We should define a string representation so people can pass them around in JSON (for example).
One option would be to use multibase (and assuming you're using a multibase that your peer understands):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: