search

status-im / specs

Specifications for Status clients.
https://specs.status.im/
MIT License
14 stars 14 forks source link

Fix mailserver spec #64

Closed adambabik closed 4 years ago

adambabik commented 4 years ago

Closes #55

kdeme commented 4 years ago

By the way, are any of the additional packet ids (still) used for mailserver functionality?

p2pRequestComplete, p2pSyncRequest, p2pSyncResponse sound related. (https://github.com/status-im/nim-eth/blob/master/eth/p2p/rlpx_protocols/whisper_protocol.nim#L228)

adambabik commented 4 years ago

@kdeme p2pSync* are not relevant. They are used to sync between mailservers like when you start a new one but want to get history from another one. I would not worry about this now.

p2pRequestComplete might be actually worth to implement. Otherwise, it's unknown when all messages were sent from a mailserver. Unless we have a better idea for this.

adambabik commented 4 years ago

@kdeme I describe P2P Request Complete code in 4eb554a.

adambabik commented 4 years ago

@kdeme If we have a section about differences, we can reference it here. But I think we must mention what is incompatible for clarify in the relevant sections. I agree that explanation can be in a different place.

It can be done in the section which explains the differences between Whisper and Waku somewhere?

Waku is speced in a different repo. Here we just want to describe the current state of the protocol.

kdeme commented 4 years ago

@adambabik Yeah, for the current state of the protocol I'm perfectly fine with it. As we base ourselves on EIP-627 in those specs / implementations.

Just a reminder for later.