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

Complete spec for sector sets and related datastructures #298

Open
4 of 5 tasks
ZenGround0 opened this issue May 28, 2019 · 6 comments
Open
4 of 5 tasks

Complete spec for sector sets and related datastructures #298

ZenGround0 opened this issue May 28, 2019 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@ZenGround0
Copy link
Contributor

ZenGround0 commented May 28, 2019

A lot of this work seems close to landing. This issue calls out the need to get all of this great work written up in the spec and canonicalized to facilitate development storage protocol faults.

  • Sector Sets. These are currently unspecified. However there is a lot of work in this issue that looks close to landing.
  • Sector IDs. In the above issue the discussion indicates that we can give the miner full selection over the sector ID. This is in conflict with the current spec for CommitSector. We need to settle on a sector ID assignment scheme.
  • Bitfields are currently not speced (encoding still TBD). However this proposal looks accepted. And the chosen rle+ encoding scheme is referenced in the spec. We just need to close the loop and specify how bitfields are encoded.
  • Bitfield/FaultSet/SectorSet Operations. These show up frequently unspecified in SubmitPoSt. This is discussed in enough detail here that implementors can probably make progress with only a Bitfield and SectorSet spec. For completeness implementers need to be able to write:
    • ValidateFaultSets([]FaultSet, Bitfield, Bitfield)
    • AggregateBitfileds([]FaultSet)
    • Subtract(Bitfield, Bitfield)
    • Filter(SectorSet, []FaultSet)
    • Sizeof(SectorSet)
  • FaultSets. These are mostly specified when a Bitfield spec is merged but the encoding still TBD implies there is a little work to do after this happens. Also again looking at Why's comments here it seems like there is still some uncertainty on how to timestamp faults.
@pooja pooja added the P1 label May 28, 2019
@pooja
Copy link
Contributor

pooja commented May 28, 2019

cc @pooja @dignifiedquire

@laser
Copy link
Contributor

laser commented May 28, 2019

@ZenGround0

In the above issue the discussion indicates that we can give the miner full selection over the sector ID. This is in conflict with the current spec for CommitSector. We need to settle on a sector ID assignment scheme.

FYI: The spec for CommitSector has recently changed to accommodate miners selecting sector IDs.

@dignifiedquire
Copy link
Contributor

spoke with @ZenGround0 and he will be working with me on the Sector Sets

@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

The bitfield operations in submit post should be clearer with #310

@pooja
Copy link
Contributor

pooja commented Jul 1, 2019

Let's review this PR: #333
Also related is: #116

@mishmosh
Copy link
Contributor

@ZenGround0 would you consider sector sets spec'd to your liking now? (if yes please close)

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

9 participants