Skip to content

require quiescence sessions to be single-use#15

Closed
ProofOfKeags wants to merge 4 commits intorustyrussell:quiescence-protocolfrom
ProofOfKeags:clarification/quiescence-single-use
Closed

require quiescence sessions to be single-use#15
ProofOfKeags wants to merge 4 commits intorustyrussell:quiescence-protocolfrom
ProofOfKeags:clarification/quiescence-single-use

Conversation

@ProofOfKeags
Copy link

This PR clarifies that protocol that assume quiescence have the responsibility for defining the states that terminate quiescence. It also attempts to track the discussion that led to this decision as well as describing non-obvious properties that result from this design choice.

rustyrussell and others added 4 commits September 30, 2021 14:37
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is especially useful for protocols such as splicing; for
simplified commitment transactions, there is already an implied
initiator at each point, so having the negotiation at splicing
time would be redundant.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
In practice, sftu is useless unless you have something (e.g. channel_upgrade)
which uses it, but adding a feature is best practice IMHO.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Copy link

@t-bast t-bast left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks @ProofOfKeags 👍

@rustyrussell can you apply this change and rebase the quiescence PR on top of bolts/master? Then it should be ready for inclusion to the BOLTs 🚀

@ProofOfKeags
Copy link
Author

Looks like these changes were applied already

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants