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

identify spec #97

Merged
merged 7 commits into from May 1, 2019
Merged
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
58 changes: 58 additions & 0 deletions identify/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
# Identify v1.0.0

The identify protocol is used to query a peer about basic information and its capabilities.

The protocol works by opening a stream, using `/ipfs/id/1.0.0` as the protocol string.
The peer being identified responds by returning an `Identify` message and closes the
stream.

## The Identify Message
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should probably note that any missing fields should be ignored (so we can do a partial identify push).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@yusefnapora want to add it?


```protobuf
message Identify {
optional string protocolVersion = 5;
optional string agentVersion = 6;
optional bytes publicKey = 1;
repeated bytes listenAddrs = 2;
optional bytes observedAddr = 4;
repeated string protocols = 3;
}
```

### protocolVersion

The protocol version identifies the family of protocols used by the peer.
The current protocol version is `ipfs/0.1.0`; if the protocol major or minor
version does not match the protocol used by the initiating peer, then the connection
is considered unusable and the peer must close the connection.

### agentVersion

This is a free-form string, identifying the implementation of the peer.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can we encourage a particular format, even if non-normative? the default is go-libp2p/<semver>, and IPFS changes this to "go-ipfs/" + version.CurrentVersionNumber + "/" + version.CurrentCommit.

https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/blob/master/core/core.go#L99

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nah, let's let people call their agents whatever they want!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

although an example might be useful.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

example sounds good

The usual format is `agent-name/version`, where `agent-name` is
the name of the program or library and `version` is its semantic version.

### publicKey

This is the public key of the peer, marshalled in binary form as specicfied
in [peer-ids](../peer-ids).


### listenAddrs

These are the addresses on which the peer is listening as multi-addresses.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does the multiaddress also include /ipfs/Qm...? If so, is /p2p also supported?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It doesn't include it. Well, it shouldn't.

### observedAddr
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are two possibilities here: this can be either the stack of protocols the listener used in order to reach back the dialer, or the stack of protocols we think the dialer used to reach us.
For the sake of forward compatibility, I think it'd be a nice idea to define this more precisely, and I'd be in favour of the former.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added a source disambiguator, per discussion in meatspace.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Per discussion I'm not satisfied with the wording, because I'd like to disambiguate what is returned when p2p-circuit is used, but I can't find any appropriate wording.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can add an example for circuit addresses specifically, as they seem to be the contentious issue.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added some examples, hopefully it's clearer now.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe something like: "This address describes the dialed peer's observed route to the dialing peer."

so wordy tho

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, and it's not really any better than the current wording.


This is the connection source address of the stream initiating peer as observed by the peer
being identified; it is a multi-address. The initiator can use this address to infer
the existence of a NAT and its public address.

For example, in the case of a TCP/IP transport the observed addresses will be of the form
`/ip4/x.x.x.x/tcp/xx`. In the case of a circuit relay connection, the observed address will
be of the form `/p2p/QmRelay/p2p-circuit`. In the case of onion transport, there is no
observable source address.

### protocols

This is a list of protocols supported by the peer.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not ordered in any specific manner.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

right, but do we need to say that?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A list implies order. If order is not important, then we can say it's an unordered set. We shouldn't be sending duplicates anyway, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it's a list on the wire, there is no set datatype.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

might be worth clarifying that this are multistream protocols (or protocol strings)?