Add a transport code to indicate content is provided via Trustless HTTP Gateway

[willscott]

per the trustless gateway spec

The exact semantics of this spec are evolving, but might as well reserve a code that we can use for indicating the existence of an HTTP endpoint for index providers.

[rvagg]

how will this code end up getting used in the network chatter?

[willscott]

how will this code end up getting used in the network chatter?

my expectation is that this will be used in the same context as transport-bitswap and transport-filecoin-graphsync-v1 - it will be a code understood in context routing contexts to indicate that this publisher can provide data over http.

[rvagg]

The only remaining hold-up here is the use of "gateway" unadorned, since that has a specific meaning for us but not all audiences of this table, ipfs-gateway would seem to be the appropriate way to solve that. Other than that it's good to go I think. I don't know about the comments about "CAR" but since that's in the description, it can be easily changed later if necessary.

[hannahhoward]

I'd support adding IPFS -- @willscott ?

[willscott]

updated name to be less ambiguous

[willscott]

I've updated the comment per @aschmahmann 's request. @rvagg i don't think we're waiting for anything else here and I believe you're the one with relevant approval powers

[lidel]

Another comment is that trustless gateway basic primitive is a block, not a CAR. CAR is only means of sending more than a single block - important distinction, because there is no trustless gateway without application/vnd.ipld.raw