mirrors/lightning-bolts
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/lightning/bolts.git synced 2024-11-19 01:50:03 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity
d3cda9bef2
lightning-bolts/09-features.md

21 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

BOLT 2&7: Cleaner separation of concerns wrt announcement signatures (#97) * BOLT 2&7: Cleaner separation of concerns wrt announcement signatures So far we did not have any indication on what to do if a node does not allow announcing the channel and we had a mix of concerns in the `funding_locked` message, which would also transfer the signatures needed for the announcement. This is a proposal about splitting the signatures into their own message, so that simple omission is an opt-out of announcements, and it does not mix announcement/gossip stuff into the peer-protocol. (It also ended up adding a localfeatures flag to opt-into the channel-announcement, and thus creating BOLT 9)
2017-02-07 01:53:39 +01:00
# BOLT #9: Assigned Feature Flags
This document tracks the assignment of `localfeatures` and `globalfeatures` flags in the `init` message ([BOLT #1](01-messaging.md)), as well as the `features` field in the `channel_announcement` message and `node_announcement` message ([BOLT #7](07-routing-gossip.md)).
They are tracked separately since new flags will likely be added over time.
The `features` flags in the routing messages are a subset of the `globalfeatures` flags, since the `localfeatures` are by definition only of interest to direct peers.
## Assigned `localfeatures` flags
BOLT 9: assign feature bits in pairs, give them names, clarify position. Christian assumed first bit was 1, I assumed 0. And we should generally assign in pairs (so an optional understanding can later become compulsory), though for the initial draft it's unnecessary. By giving names we avoid smearing values over the spec, containing them in BOLT 9. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2017-02-07 05:28:31 +01:00
These flags may only be used in the `init` message, and are generally assigned in pairs.
BOLT 2&7: Cleaner separation of concerns wrt announcement signatures (#97) * BOLT 2&7: Cleaner separation of concerns wrt announcement signatures So far we did not have any indication on what to do if a node does not allow announcing the channel and we had a mix of concerns in the `funding_locked` message, which would also transfer the signatures needed for the announcement. This is a proposal about splitting the signatures into their own message, so that simple omission is an opt-out of announcements, and it does not mix announcement/gossip stuff into the peer-protocol. (It also ended up adding a localfeatures flag to opt-into the channel-announcement, and thus creating BOLT 9)
2017-02-07 01:53:39 +01:00
BOLT 9: assign feature bits in pairs, give them names, clarify position. Christian assumed first bit was 1, I assumed 0. And we should generally assign in pairs (so an optional understanding can later become compulsory), though for the initial draft it's unnecessary. By giving names we avoid smearing values over the spec, containing them in BOLT 9. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2017-02-07 05:28:31 +01:00
Flags begin at bit 0 (ie. 0x1), and odd-numbered flags (eg. 0x2) are optional.
| Bits | Name |Description | Link |
|------|------------------|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
BOLT 9: make it clear that 'channel_public' apply to all channels in the same connection
2017-02-20 12:55:08 +01:00
| 0/1 | `channels_public` | The sending node wishes to announce channels | [BOLT #7](07-routing-gossip.md#the-announcement_signatures-message) |
BOLT 7: Added flag for optional initial routing sync dump Opening a lot of connections results in getting this information a whole lot of times, so let's add an opt-in flag for the initial dump.
2017-02-07 17:14:35 +01:00
| 2/3 | `initial_routing_sync` | The sending node needs a complete routing information dump | [BOLT #7](07-routing-gossip.md#initial-sync) |
BOLT 2&7: Cleaner separation of concerns wrt announcement signatures (#97) * BOLT 2&7: Cleaner separation of concerns wrt announcement signatures So far we did not have any indication on what to do if a node does not allow announcing the channel and we had a mix of concerns in the `funding_locked` message, which would also transfer the signatures needed for the announcement. This is a proposal about splitting the signatures into their own message, so that simple omission is an opt-out of announcements, and it does not mix announcement/gossip stuff into the peer-protocol. (It also ended up adding a localfeatures flag to opt-into the channel-announcement, and thus creating BOLT 9)
2017-02-07 01:53:39 +01:00
## Assigned `globalfeatures` flags
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink