waku-org
/
specs
mirror of https://github.com/waku-org/specs.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

add draft suggestions

This commit is contained in:
Sasha 2024-06-03 13:51:52 +02:00
parent 3edb50013d
commit 7371dabdca
No known key found for this signature in database
1 changed files with 11 additions and 17 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

28
informational/req-res-reliability.md
View File

@ -14,31 +14,25 @@ This RFC describes set of instructions used across different [WAKU2](https://git
Descriptions of mentioned protocols do not define some of the real world use cases that are oftenly observed in unreliable network environment. Such use cases can be: recovery from offline state, decrease rate of missed messages, increase probability of messages being broadcasted. Descriptions of mentioned protocols do not define some of the real world use cases that are oftenly observed in unreliable network environment. Such use cases can be: recovery from offline state, decrease rate of missed messages, increase probability of messages being broadcasted.
## Theory / Semantics ## Suggestions
This section SHOULD explain in detail how the proposed protocol works. ### Peer and connection management
It may touch on the wire format where necessary for the explanation.
This section MAY also specify endpoint behaviour when receiving specific messages, e.g. the behaviour of certain caches etc.
## Wire Format Specification / Syntax Each protocols should retain a pool of reliable peers. In case a protocol failed to use any peer more than once - connection to it should be dropped and new peer should be added to the pool instead.
The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”,
“NOT RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).
This section SHOULD not contain explanations of semantics and focus on concisely defining the wire format. ### Light Push
Implementations SHOULD adhere to these exact formats to interoperate with other implementations.
It is fine, if parts of the previous section that touch on the wire format are repeated.
The purpose of this section is having a concise definition of what an implementation sends and accepts.
Parts that are not specified here are considered implementation details.
Implementors are free to decide on how to implement these details.
In case sending message failed - node should try to re-send message after some interval.
## Implementation Suggestions (optional) ### Filter
An optional *implementation suggestions* section may provide suggestions on how to approach implementation details, and,
if available, point to existing implementations for reference.
- To decrease chances of missing messages a node can initiate more than one subscription through Filter protocol to the same content topic and filter out duplicates. This will increase bandwidth consumption and would depend on the information exchanged under content topic in use.
## (Further Optional Sections) - In case a node goes offline while having an active subscription - it is important to do ping again right after node appears online. In case ping fails - re-subscribe request should be fired.
### Store
- none for now
## Security/Privacy Considerations ## Security/Privacy Considerations