* Add draft DONTSEND Gossip control message spec
* Rename DONTSEND to IDONTWANT
* Use the proper SHOULD and MAY wordings
* gossipsub v1.2 scaffolding
* Add authors and interest group members
* Remove potential use cases which may potentially lead to amplification
* Minor rephrasing with MAY/SHOULD
* Change SHOULD to MUST according to discussion in comments
* Make the ControlIDontWant.messageIDs plural to be consistent with IHAVE and IWANT messages
Co-authored-by: Pop Chunhapanya <haxx.pop@gmail.com>
* Change filed name to lower case for consistency with original spec
Co-authored-by: João Oliveira <hello@jxs.pt>
---------
Co-authored-by: vyzo <vyzo@hackzen.org>
Co-authored-by: Pop Chunhapanya <haxx.pop@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: João Oliveira <hello@jxs.pt>
* gossipsub v1.1 validation queue protection with Random Early Drop
* compute GlobalDecayCoefficient for 2 minute decay
* tweak default parameter values
* add note about per topic delivery weights
* move RED to its own (draft) specification
* Update spec title
Co-authored-by: Raúl Kripalani <raul@protocol.ai>
* editorial changes
Co-authored-by: Raúl Kripalani <raul@protocol.ai>
Rationale:
- go-libp2p currently produces non-utf8 strings
- making this bytes allows more flexibility in creating message ids, e.g.
- random bytes
- hashes
Small tweak, but it kept jumping out at me as I'm reading the spec. A spec should be written in an authoritative manner and not second-guess itself. Right now it reads more like a note to self that was left over.
If this is a possible enhancement/renaming, it should be captured in a separate issue IMO.
It is also unlikely that this field will change, considering how many clients implemented it with this naming.
Finally, I personally think the name is perfectly fine :)
