From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B702C004D for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 19:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78ACB87763 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 19:28:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vuXaOuIGwqgV for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 19:28:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io1-f42.google.com (mail-io1-f42.google.com [209.85.166.42]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8719287524 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 19:28:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f42.google.com with SMTP id u126so11753988iod.12 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 12:28:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=sWIMrKgKBc5UqI/YLh7mOxRTmgwCbDhPDDmPiyjX/YI=; b=UlzmyUeyjUlASqVc2Lgq5T3n44MZLqvXpw2zPfUezLe3OjOgaLTBPPoPSJ3Ibyf7v2 7SJyteVSKggsxM3Brp8Ep5L1VohvgdXjDkhie9CSLv0EGJYvBjTeXDXcMQVmn4ZGUYdK slCNmmn+Wrxlpq46p6mlxEWDgyGBI1kTjmbvjYp5+kXNNx9AbTkoJfBBLkiAP7YopNXg aX/RwswzL9/PxCeQ3f+NSKjwFQunAPeQ+WAWzV8oqv0stxf3UakEaNW6j76vWL+S3KcD Sm1Rq4Co26k/tjE0mKfnRxl4NaUm7G8iPAra+BfVSYNRv6S4FON8Sdcmsdi9g3GifRAn jpqw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=sWIMrKgKBc5UqI/YLh7mOxRTmgwCbDhPDDmPiyjX/YI=; b=TpborjCouLH6F9q3ZdgfC2y9pg73oT+6tLue0oKQBO3UToRAg7VJW9LnzFogZy+2wJ 14EwGiioiyZEoUxJV8v6iaaDj1pT9WRoPAL3h60NilttXVWLqPwHh542IMuPoHlDkJMX 696WaeTNIGLwkypdONtYy6cHOUzXYSRbEQ3xtzRrYYEyUO+HkKZmyD2rQh9mf/xbEfjd G1JZAl7pjTX65NKmQK9K06q4ZGRwV6M//XYuaeZSHsUtoECG16TRypVm3OZd4A+3HRDH +2NKFui7lj7xMSDv2fUTqpaOKj2tFqRWuyxgq0UxRIKGoX9C2x+AALZv5ZJADb5v8pKF cOjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533+bSt2aKfokmUhKNblsraMoK01IgPJ0yMg5vyzmbLYBrjcJ+qm MpJMG/WVYdwxY8WNUr3isCkXLg+Lql6Io6fBo0iZFLmiSUfn2w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyFt6Cg8t4ykl7o9bAu0pjLoflg2dxLh6gEbBvzrmjcpxi0qOgxPpAkvl/FqStkZOtxgpKhPJePYqFILh+3pMk= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8c02:: with SMTP id n2mr3377470ioj.143.1597433333024; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 12:28:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Suhas Daftuar Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:28:41 -0400 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005e0e4605acdb6eab" Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Generalizing feature negotiation when new p2p connections are setup X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 19:28:55 -0000 --0000000000005e0e4605acdb6eab Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, Back in February I posted a proposal for WTXID-based transaction relay[1] (now known as BIP 339), which included a proposal for feature negotiation to take place prior to the VERACK message being received by each side. In my email to this list, I had asked for feedback as to whether that proposal was problematic, and didn't receive any responses. Since then, the implementation of BIP 339 has been merged into Bitcoin Core, though it has not yet been released. In thinking about the mechanism used there, I thought it would be helpful to codify in a BIP the idea that Bitcoin network clients should ignore unknown messages received before a VERACK. A draft of my proposal is available here[2]. I presume that software upgrading past protocol version 70016 was already planning to either implement BIP 339, or ignore the wtxidrelay message proposed in BIP 339 (if not, then this would create network split concerns in the future -- so I hope that someone would speak up if this were a problem). When we propose future protocol upgrades that would benefit from feature negotiation at the time of connection, I think it would be nice to be able to use the same method as proposed in BIP 339, without even needing to bump the protocol version. So having an understanding that this is the standard of how other network clients operate would be helpful. If, on the other hand, this is problematic for some reason, I look forward to hearing that as well, so that we can be careful about how we deploy future p2p changes to avoid disruption. Thanks, Suhas Daftuar [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-February/017648.html [2] https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/2020-08-generalized-feature-negotiation/bip-p2p-feature-negotiation.mediawiki --0000000000005e0e4605acdb6eab Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

Back in February I posted a proposa= l for WTXID-based transaction relay[1] (now known as BIP 339), which includ= ed a proposal for feature negotiation to take place prior to the VERACK mes= sage being received by each side.=C2=A0 In my email to this list, I had ask= ed for feedback as to whether that proposal was problematic, and didn't= receive any responses.

Since then, the implementa= tion=C2=A0of BIP 339 has been merged into Bitcoin Core, though it has not y= et been released.

In thinking about the mechanism = used there, I thought it would=C2=A0be helpful to codify in a BIP the idea = that Bitcoin network clients should ignore unknown messages received before= a VERACK.=C2=A0 A draft of my proposal is available here[2].
I presume that software upgrading past protocol version 70016 w= as already planning to either implement BIP 339, or ignore the wtxidrelay m= essage proposed in BIP 339 (if not, then this would create network split co= ncerns in the future -- so I hope that someone would speak up if this were = a problem).=C2=A0 When we propose future protocol upgrades that would benef= it from feature negotiation at the time of connection, I think it would be = nice to be able to use the same method as proposed in BIP 339, without even= needing to bump the protocol version.=C2=A0 So having an understanding tha= t this is the standard of how other network clients operate would be helpfu= l.

If, on the other hand, this is problematic for = some reason, I look forward to hearing that as well, so that we can be care= ful about how we deploy future p2p changes to avoid disruption.
<= br>
Thanks,
Suhas Daftuar


[2]=C2=A0<= a href=3D"https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/2020-08-generalized-feature= -negotiation/bip-p2p-feature-negotiation.mediawiki">https://github.com/sdaf= tuar/bips/blob/2020-08-generalized-feature-negotiation/bip-p2p-feature-nego= tiation.mediawiki
--0000000000005e0e4605acdb6eab--