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

discv5: TALKREQ/TALKRESP to allow extending the protocol #156

Closed
pipermerriam opened this issue Jul 29, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

discv5: TALKREQ/TALKRESP to allow extending the protocol #156

pipermerriam opened this issue Jul 29, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@pipermerriam
Copy link
Member

pipermerriam commented Jul 29, 2020

From @fjl in the research discord:

In the stable spec release, due next week, I will add the TALKREQ/TALKRESP messages.
The idea behind those is allowing you to install basic message handlers behind a protocol name, in discovery
The request is TALKREQ [ req-id, protocol, data ]
You could use this mechanism for your data DHT experiment
e.g. you could add a handler for your "chaindata" protocol (or whatever you want to call it) and serve the requests this way. If you announce the capability to serve data this way in ENR, it should be pretty easy to build an extra routing table for your data DHT.
Does that sound like a good starting point?
The TALKREQ thing is a very flexible extension point, I think. The intended use for this is 'agreeing to talk', which is why it's called TALKREQ. But since it's a totally free-form extension point, it could also be used for experiments.


A brief search yielded no information about a `TALKREQ/TALKRESP` set of messages.  Their usage and implementation looks relatively intuitive.  Is this still planned/wanted.  If so I can take a stab at opening a PR to add these message types.
@fjl
Copy link
Collaborator

fjl commented Jul 29, 2020

Hey, sorry, life got in the way and I didn't have the time to finish up the spec yet. I did define those messages in my local branch for the update, just pushed it to #157.

@fjl fjl closed this as completed Jul 29, 2020
@pipermerriam
Copy link
Member Author

No need to apologize at all. I just recently started hammering on our python implementation of the spec and wanted to keep track of this. ❤️

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants