Proposal: Interledger RPC (instead of LLL) #260
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
slightly different take on: #251 and #256 based on conversations with @michielbdejong, @sharafian, @justmoon By separating the transfer contents from whether they are part of a bilateral (e.g. trustline) or multilateral (e.g. centralized ledger) relationship, the transfer protocol becomes much more general and thus makes sense to include alongside the "core" ILP data formats. InterledgerRpc wraps the InterledgerPacket types in an envelope that adds a to, from (either or both of which can be set to empty strings if they are implied, as is the case in a bilateral connection), a requestId to correlate requests and responses, and sideProtocolData for extensibility. Any type of InterledgerRpc request can become a paid request by including a Transfer or ConditionalTransfer in it (which themselves can contain other InterledgerPackets -- InterledgerProtocolPayments or any other type of data that you might want/need to pay for).
emschwartz
changed the title
|
@sharafian convinced me that it is better to have the LLL as a properly separate protocol with a different type registry so I'm closing this PR in favor of #261 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
slightly different take on #251 and #256
based on conversations with @michielbdejong, @sharafian, @justmoon
By separating the transfer contents from whether they are part of a
bilateral (e.g. trustline) or multilateral (e.g. centralized ledger)
relationship, the transfer protocol becomes much more general and thus
makes sense to include alongside the "core" ILP data formats.
InterledgerRpcwraps theInterledgerPackettypes in an envelope thatadds a
to,from(either or both of which can be set to empty strings ifthey are implied, as is the case in a bilateral connection), a
requestIdto correlate requests and responses, and
sideProtocolDataforextensibility.
Any type of
InterledgerRpcrequest can become a paid request byincluding a
TransferorConditionalTransferin it (which themselves cancontain other
InterledgerPackets --InterledgerProtocolPayments or anyother type of data that you might want/need to pay for).