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

meta=eof+json update #1

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Oct 18, 2023
Merged

meta=eof+json update #1

merged 7 commits into from
Oct 18, 2023

Conversation

patrickwoodhead
Copy link
Collaborator

@patrickwoodhead patrickwoodhead commented Oct 3, 2023

Updated the Trustless Gateway doc and IPIP-431 doc based on the discussion in ipfs#431

Of note, the signature is over all other fields so that it is generic enough for other use cases and can be included in the trustless gateway spec.

There is s till a contentious point about whether b3checksum is generic enough to be included in the top level spec, outside of just the scope of Spark

@patrickwoodhead patrickwoodhead changed the title meta=eof+data update meta=eof+json update Oct 3, 2023
Copy link
Owner

@bajtos bajtos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great improvements, @patrickwoodhead!

I have a few comments to discuss.

We will also need to add more content to "Security" and "Alternatives" sections to capture the discussion we had in the PR.

src/http-gateways/trustless-gateway.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/http-gateways/trustless-gateway.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/http-gateways/trustless-gateway.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/ipips/ipip-0431.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/ipips/ipip-0431.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/ipips/ipip-0431.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@patrickwoodhead
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@bajtos I have had a go at resolving all of your feedback. Please take another look when you can. One thing to note is that the content type for the metadata block in this PR is json, not dag-json. I want to make sure that is the right approach as most of the discussion in the original PR refers to dag-json. I'm just not sure I understand what it gives us here over normal json.

@bajtos
Copy link
Owner

bajtos commented Oct 18, 2023

I have had a go at resolving all of your feedback.

🤩 Awesome, I'll take a look!

One thing to note is that the content type for the metadata block in this PR is json, not dag-json. I want to make sure that is the right approach as most of the discussion in the original PR refers to dag-json. I'm just not sure I understand what it gives us here over normal json.

As I understand it, dag-json is adding few more restrictions & interpretation rules on top of regular JSON.

Most simple JSON objects are valid DAG-JSON. The primary differences are:

  • Bytes and Links are supported with special use of single-key ("/") map.
  • In limited cases, maps with the key "/" other than those used to encode Bytes and Links, are disallowed.
  • Maps are sorted by key.

I think changing the spec from JSON to DAG-JSON is easy, so this is something we can discuss with other IPIP reviewers in the original pull request.

@bajtos bajtos merged commit 72ed04c into gw-car-metadata-trailer Oct 18, 2023
@bajtos bajtos deleted the review-1-fixes branch October 18, 2023 09:05
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.

2 participants