38/LOGOS-CONSENSUS-GLACIER

[easye]

c.f. #509

Ongoing pull request towards an initial Logos Consensus RFC

[kaiserd]

Thanks for starting this PR.
Imo, the focus should be on aspects that are important for implementors.
So, the more background related sections could be left as placeholders / filled with a rough sketch for now.

[kaiserd]

I'd suggest adding a section for Wire Format Specification / Syntax after Exposition of Snow-family Consensus Models
( In #488, I generically described what could/should be in that section.)

Also adding a "security" section like Security/Privacy Considerations whould be helpful.
The contents can be a rough sketch for the raw version of the RFC.

You can also use the following copyright section:

# Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

[oskarth]

Where's the content? I see nothing that relates to actual consensus mechanism. It shouldn't take that long to get basic semantics done considering a lot has been written already

[D4nte]

communicate*

The use of semantic line breaks https://sembr.org/ is recommended https://rfc.vac.dev/spec/1/#conventions

[easye]

The use of semantic line breaks https://sembr.org/ is recommended https://rfc.vac.dev/spec/1/#conventions

Choosing to not implement this suggestion for the moment, as manual paragraph filling is part of my re-writing process.

• But I'll definitely take this as a TODO for exiting the RAW specification state to not confuse upstream consumers.

[easye]

It doesn't seem that the inclusion of line breaks is affecting downstream Markdown consumer's notion of paragraphs.

But will double check before we enter draft raw.

[oskarth]

What is needed before this is ready for review / mergeable? What about being draft (does this even make sense given current state?) Does it reflect and capture all relevant current knowledge in e.g. Notion?

[easye]

What is needed before this is ready for review / mergeable? What about being draft (does this even make sense given current state?) Does it reflect and capture all relevant current knowledge in e.g. Notion?

• Camera-ready edit of text
• Confirm how markdown renders locally (using Pandoc 2.18 current; Github preview is not ready)
• Alvaro's contributor status clear
• pseudo-code description of Glacier accurate
• review by end of August from at least two Logos contributors
  • Increase Logos Github familiarity for those who need it

[easye]

Where's the content? I see nothing that relates to actual consensus mechanism.

A base pseudo-code exposition of Glacier now exists. It needs editing, but is largely correct. Main problem is describing termination accurately.

[easye]

I'd suggest adding a section for Wire Format Specification / Syntax after Exposition of Snow-family Consensus Models

Resolved.

Security/Privacy Considerations whould be helpful.

See the "Sovereignty Considerations" section. Thanks!

# Copyright

Added.

[kaiserd]

I rewrote the history to sign unsigned commits:

• remove merged-in commits form master (otherwise, we cannot cleanly rebase on master at the end)
• sigend all commits in this PR
• rebased on master

With this, we can close this PR.
Thanks to all who have contributed :).