path: root/draft-schanzen-r5n.xml
diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'draft-schanzen-r5n.xml')
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/draft-schanzen-r5n.xml b/draft-schanzen-r5n.xml
index 08f1497..9bbebfc 100644
--- a/draft-schanzen-r5n.xml
+++ b/draft-schanzen-r5n.xml
@@ -633,14 +633,15 @@ Connectivity | |Underlay| |Underlay|
While details on how the first connection is established <bcp14>MAY</bcp14>
depend on the specific implementation, this <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> usually be done
by an out-of-band exchange of the information from a <tt>HELLO</tt> block.
- <!-- FIXME: Is this really an encoding of a block? It seems to me that "HELLO"
- is not properly defined.
- FIXME: Should? Isn't this part of the HelloMessage? -->
+ <!-- FIXME It is unclear why this is needed and why it is here. THis is a serialization format
+ of the HELLO block that is not used anywhere in the draft. I already moved the formati itself
+ into the appendix. -->
For this, section <xref target="hello_url"/> specifies a URL format for encoding HELLO
blocks as text strings which <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be supported by implementations.
- <!-- FIXME REPL_LVL unclear, RF_SIZE unclear -->
+ <!-- FIXME REPL_LVL unclear, RF_SIZE unclear. Sections like this make me wonder how
+ we can avoid using prose to specify message creation -->
To discover peers for its routing table, a peer will initiate <tt>GetMessage</tt> requests
<xref target="p2p_get"/> asking for blocks of type <tt>HELLO</tt> using its own peer address as
<tt>QUERY_HASH</tt>, filtering all of its neighbors via the Bloom filter described
@@ -676,10 +677,7 @@ Connectivity | |Underlay| |Underlay|
Whenever a peer receives such a <tt>HELLO</tt> message from another peer that is
already in the routing table, it must cache it as long as that peer is in its routing table
(or until the <tt>HELLO</tt> expires) and serve it in response to
- <!-- FIXME wat is a Peer Discovery request??
- maybe a <tt>HELLO</tt> GET request?
- -->
- Peer Discovery requests.
+ GET requests for <tt>HELLO</tt> blocks (see <xref target="p2p_get_processing"/>).
<section anchor="routing_bloomfilter">
@@ -1329,7 +1327,7 @@ BEGIN
the peer is removed from the routing table, or the information is replaced by another message from the peer.
<!-- FIXME same problem as for <tt>HELLO</tt> blocks: We do not need to TRY_CONNECT here because we already have
a connection, obviously. But we may want to TRY_CONNECT on the new addresses? Adding for now -->
- The implementation <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> instruct the Underlay to connect to all now available addresses
+ The implementation <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> instruct the Underlay to connect to all now available addresses
using <tt>TRY_CONNECT</tt> in order to make the underlay aware of alternative addresses for this connection and
to maintain optimal connectivity.
@@ -1572,16 +1570,15 @@ BEGIN
number of peers to forward the message to. The implementation <bcp14>MAY</bcp14>
forward to fewer or no peers in order to handle resource constraints
such as limited bandwidth.
- <!-- FIXME: From above. it seems to me that here we need to add a new putpath
- signature element (as we know the successor now)-->
- For each selected peer with peer address <tt>P</tt> a dedicated <tt>PutMessage'</tt>
+ For each selected peer with peer address <tt>P</tt> a dedicated <tt>PutMessage_P</tt>
is created containing the original (and where applicable already updated) fields
of the received <tt>PutMessage</tt>.
In each message the local peer address <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be added to the
<tt>PEER_BF</tt> and the <tt>HOPCOUNT</tt> is incremented by 1.
If the <tt>RecordRoute</tt> flag is set, a new Path Element is created and added
to the <tt>PUTPATH</tt> fields and the <tt>PATH_LEN</tt> field is incremented by 1.
- Finally, <tt>SEND(P, PutMessage')</tt> is called.
+ The successor in the new Path Element is the recipient peer <tt>P</tt> of the <tt>PutMessageP</tt>.
+ Finally, the messages are sent using <tt>SEND(P, PutMessageP)</tt> each recipient.