search

libp2p / specs

Technical specifications for the libp2p networking stack
https://libp2p.io
1.56k stars 273 forks source link

The lifecycle document is not followed very strictly #336

Closed thomaseizinger closed 3 years ago

thomaseizinger commented 3 years ago

This issue is not a criticism but more of an observation :)

I just read through the lifecycle document again and noticed that - according to that - any spec that stays in Working Draft for longer than 4 months without being extended is supposed to move into Terminated. To avoid this, it shall be pushed forward towards a Candidate Recommendation.

Neither of this has happened with the rendezvous protocol. I don't see an immediate need to change this, just wanted to get a feeling for how this is usually handled. I hope this doesn't trigger a PR now where the spec is being terminated because we are on the pathway of using it :)

mxinden commented 3 years ago

The lifecycle document is not followed very strictly

Correct. I hope to either (a) loosen the lifecycle document or (b) make the specifications follow the document more strictly in the future. That said, this is a rather large effort and likely not going to happen any time soon.

To avoid this, it shall be pushed forward towards a Candidate Recommendation.

I am fine with promoting the Rendezvous specification to Candidate Recommendation, though, given my low involvement, my vote should be given little weight.

@vyzo @vasco-santos what is your opinion?

I hope this doesn't trigger a PR now where the spec is being terminated because we are on the pathway of using it :)

:D I don't think we should remove the Rendezvous protocol.

vyzo commented 3 years ago

if the implementations are merged and tested interoperable, we can move to CR.

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 14:07 Max Inden @.***> wrote:

The lifecycle document is not followed very strictly

Correct. I hope to either (a) loosen the lifecycle document or (b) make the specifications follow the document more strictly in the future. That said, this is a rather large effort and likely not going to happen any time soon.

To avoid this, it shall be pushed forward towards a Candidate Recommendation.

I am fine with promoting the Rendezvous specification to Candidate Recommendation, though, given my low involvement, my vote should be given little weight.

@vyzo https://github.com/vyzo @vasco-santos https://github.com/vasco-santos what is your opinion?

I hope this doesn't trigger a PR now where the spec is being terminated because we are on the pathway of using it :)

:D I don't think we should remove the Rendezvous protocol.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/libp2p/specs/issues/336#issuecomment-864944946, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAI4SR7PTPI5GQIWTCUYBTTT4MOLANCNFSM47ARS5HQ .

thomaseizinger commented 3 years ago

Correct. I hope to either (a) loosen the lifecycle document or (b) make the specifications follow the document more strictly in the future. That said, this is a rather large effort and likely not going to happen any time soon.

Thanks for the clarification. I primarily opened this issue to have the question answered. Closing this issue as a result.