Skip to content

Conversation

@vasco-santos
Copy link
Member

This PR adds recommendations to the rendezvous spec regarding how a rendezvous point should be configured. These were based on the discussions on the go implementation PR and current code. The discover limit seems a bit higher, but if we have smaller defaults on the client, we can keep it as 1000.

It also fixes an error response status to E_INVALID_SIGNED_PEER_RECORD since we are using signed peer records now and this is now yet implemented.

Copy link
Member

@mxinden mxinden left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 on documenting recommendations. I am not familiar enough with the Rendezvous protocol to approve here. Who is familiar enough to do the review @vasco-santos?


## Recommendations for Rendezvous Points configurations

Rendezvous points should have well defined configurations to enable libp2p nodes running the rendezvous protocol to have friendly defaults, as well as to guarantee the security and efficiency of a Rendezvous point. This will be particularly important in a federation, where rendezvous points should share the same expectations.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit pick: The rest of the specification is wrapped at 80 characters. Can you do the same here for consistency?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fixed

@vasco-santos
Copy link
Member Author

@vyzo is the author, but I would say that anyone in the interest group can also weight in

@rvagg rvagg mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2021
77 tasks
@mxinden
Copy link
Member

mxinden commented Apr 26, 2021

@ interest-group - @ vasco-santos (@daviddias, @whyrusleeping, @Stebalien, @jacobheun, @yusefnapora) can one of you review the suggested changes here?

Copy link
Member

@mxinden mxinden left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Merging here since there have been no concerns raised since the last round of pings. Thanks @vasco-santos.

@mxinden mxinden merged commit fecbe3c into master Apr 30, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants