feat(62/STATUS-Payload): adds the status protocol payload spec #612
Conversation
|
|
||
| This specification describes how the payload of each message in Status looks | ||
| like. | ||
| It is primarily centered around chat and chat-related use cases. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe refer to the status-1to1-chat rfc here?
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| `signature` is the bytes of the signed `SHA3-256` of the payload, signed with the key of the author of the message. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe in the security considerations we should note that this does not have sender anonymity
| string chat_id = 6; | ||
|
|
||
| // The type of message (public/one-to-one/private-group-chat) | ||
| MessageType message_type = 7; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seeing MessageType defined below, should we also do the same for ContentType?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // Only local | ||
| SYSTEM_MESSAGE_GAP = 10; | ||
| CONTACT_REQUEST = 11; | ||
| DISCORD_MESSAGE = 12; | ||
| IDENTITY_VERIFICATION = 13; | ||
| // Only local | ||
| SYSTEM_MESSAGE_PINNED_MESSAGE = 14; | ||
| // Only local | ||
| SYSTEM_MESSAGE_MUTUAL_EVENT_SENT = 15; | ||
| // Only local | ||
| SYSTEM_MESSAGE_MUTUAL_EVENT_ACCEPTED = 16; | ||
| // Only local | ||
| SYSTEM_MESSAGE_MUTUAL_EVENT_REMOVED = 17; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we have some more details about these types of messages?
| - Clients MUST choose a secure decoder | ||
| - Clients SHOULD strip metadata if present without parsing/decoding it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
might be a silly question, but what constitutes a "secure decoder"? could we have an example?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a silly question, and honestly, I have no idea.
| | 1 | id | `string` | The id of the contact request | | ||
| | 2 | clock | `uint64` | Clock value of the message | | ||
|
|
||
| ### CommunityRequestToJoinResponse |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
duplicated across specs, see https://rfc.vac.dev/spec/56/#wire-format
| | 5 | community_id | `bytes` | The id of the community | | ||
| | 6 | magnet_uri | `string` | The latest magnet uri of the community's archive torrent | | ||
|
|
||
| ### CommunityRequestToLeave |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
duplicated across specs, see https://rfc.vac.dev/spec/56/#wire-format
| | 2 | id | `string` | The verification request id | | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### CommunityCancelRequestToJoin |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
duplicated across specs, see https://rfc.vac.dev/spec/56/#wire-format
| ## Security Considerations | ||
|
|
||
| - |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this inherits security considerations of the key-exchange mechanism, waku-relay, no sender anonymity, etc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. Please add a line making this explicit.
| ### Version 0.5 | ||
|
|
||
| Released [August 25, 2020](https://github.com/status-im/specs/commit/968fafff23cdfc67589b34dd64015de29aaf41f0) | ||
|
|
||
| - Added support for emoji reactions | ||
|
|
||
| ### Version 0.4 | ||
|
|
||
| Released [July 16, 2020](https://github.com/status-im/specs/commit/ad45cd5fed3c0f79dfa472253a404f670dd47396) | ||
|
|
||
| - Added support for images | ||
| - Added support for audio | ||
|
|
||
| ### Version 0.3 | ||
|
|
||
| Released [May 22, 2020](https://github.com/status-im/specs/commit/664dd1c9df6ad409e4c007fefc8c8945b8d324e8) | ||
|
|
||
| - Added language to include Waku in all relevant places |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are these versions to be included? cc: @kaiserd
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not for raw RFCs. (For drafts, they are on the top of the RFC; see filter RFC)
We can remove that part.
If desired by Status, we can link to one previous status spec version though.
| ## Security Considerations | ||
|
|
||
| - |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. Please add a line making this explicit.
No description provided.