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

bolt2: shutdown adventure #985

Closed
vincenzopalazzo opened this issue Apr 29, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed

bolt2: shutdown adventure #985

vincenzopalazzo opened this issue Apr 29, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@vincenzopalazzo
Copy link
Contributor

vincenzopalazzo commented Apr 29, 2022

With this issue, I would like to clarify and put the timeline on coop-close PRs that we discuss in the last meeting.

In particular, the discussion started with the following issue #964 :

  1. When we should send a commitment_signed (BOLT#02: clarify coop close requirements #970)
  2. After the discussion started in the meeting about this problem, I start to write a testing in lnprototest (coop-close channel integration testing rustyrussell/lnprototest#37), and
  3. I realized that the solution could be specified what we must disallow, so I open the PR (BOLT 2: forget the check about update_* messages, and check what must not happens during shutdown #972) where it is specified only the message that we must not receive, in this case, an add htlc msg
    3.1. Not in the PR but discussed, we should send a commitment_signed when there is no pending htlc
    3.2 We should keep the constraint of update fee msg, like : if the update_fee is too low for timely processing, OR is unreasonably large: MUST send a warning and close the connection, or send an error and fail the channel
  4. During the adventure in lnprototest I realized that we can send multiple shutdown with different scriptpubkey and my claim here is the same of before, we should specify if this behavior is wrong what a node should not do, and not what we should do in the case of multiple shutdown with different scriptpubkey
    4.1: We should allow it? (BOLT 2: allow multiple shutdown message from the sender side. #976)
    4.2: We should add a rule to ban multiple shutdowns? (BOLT 2: disallow sending multiple shutdown msg #977)
@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator

t-bast commented May 9, 2022

Thanks for the details, that's helpful!

@vincenzopalazzo
Copy link
Contributor Author

We conclude this adventure with the last merge #970 (review)

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