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

BOLT 2: remove local/remote from reestablish field names. #634

Open

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@rustyrussell
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jul 10, 2019

(No spec change, just wording)

The "local" and "remote" here are just confusing. Each side says
where it's at, and the other side retransmits based on that.

We could call it 'number_of_next_commitment_i_expect_to_receive' and
'number_of_next_revocation_i_expect_to_receive' but that's getting
silly.

These names were a major source of confusion while writing tests!

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell rusty@rustcorp.com.au

BOLT 2: remove local/remote from reestablish field names.
(No spec change, just wording)

The "local" and "remote" here are just *confusing*.  Each side says
where it's at, and the other side retransmits based on that.

We could call it 'number_of_next_commitment_i_expect_to_receive' and
'number_of_next_revocation_i_expect_to_receive' but that's getting
silly.

These names were a major source of confusion while writing tests!

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

@rustyrussell rustyrussell requested a review from niftynei Jul 10, 2019

@pm47

pm47 approved these changes Jul 11, 2019

Copy link
Collaborator

left a comment

Agreed, local/remote don't bring anything. It is still ambiguous without the detailed description ("the sending node [...]") though.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.