Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fulfillments and Errors are Responses, Not Requests #14

Open
dappelt opened this issue Nov 29, 2017 · 3 comments
Open

Fulfillments and Errors are Responses, Not Requests #14

dappelt opened this issue Nov 29, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@dappelt
Copy link
Collaborator

dappelt commented Nov 29, 2017

The design principal Fulfillments and Errors are Responses, Not Requests in combination with Recommend Using HTTP limits payment timeouts in ilp3 to that of HTTP timeouts. In consequence, only very fast ledgers will be compatible with ilp3. Also, if a single TCP connection along the path drops the payment fails and the connector that had his connection dropped potentially losing funds. This seems to be very fragile.

@emschwartz
Copy link
Owner

limits payment timeouts in ilp3 to that of HTTP timeouts. In consequence, only very fast ledgers will be compatible with ilp3

That is intentional. As mentioned here, I think we should only focus on fast HTLAs (which means no escrow until ledgers are super fast).

Also, if a single TCP connection along the path drops the payment fails and the connector that had his connection dropped potentially losing funds. This seems to be very fragile.

There are two ways I would look at this: first, think of payments as being really small, small enough that it doesn't matter if one gets lost. In such a system I think you'd worry much more about achieving maximum speed rather than accounting for every single cent.

If that isn't good enough, you could also add a transfer ID to the ledger layer protocol and make transfers idempotent within a short window of time. That way, if your connection drops and you don't get the fulfillment back you could just retry the transfer (quickly, because as you pointed out the expiry window would be very short) and you'd ideally get the fulfillment then.

@adrianhopebailie
Copy link
Collaborator

That is intentional. As mentioned here, I think we should only focus on fast HTLAs (which means no escrow until ledgers are super fast).

I agree with this but think it is also use case specific. It's completely acceptable for a retail payment to take up to 30 seconds to complete for example.

So your definition of "fast" may be different to mine.

@emschwartz
Copy link
Owner

emschwartz commented Nov 30, 2017 via email

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants