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

Move IPFS addressing spec to ipfs/specs #248

Open
14 tasks
lidel opened this issue May 16, 2019 · 6 comments
Open
14 tasks

Move IPFS addressing spec to ipfs/specs #248

lidel opened this issue May 16, 2019 · 6 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@lidel
Copy link
Member

lidel commented May 16, 2019

The best and up-to-date source of truth about IPFS addressing right now is in ADDRESSING.md memo.

As more and more people add IPFS support to their software, especially on the web,
we should decrease noise and increase signal around addressing by adding proper technical spec doc to the ipfs/specs repo, as suggested in #138.

Timeline

TODO

cc ipfs/in-web-browsers#118 ipfs/in-web-browsers#3 ipfs/ipfs#227 ipfs/in-web-browsers#4 ipfs/in-web-browsers#28 #139 @autonome

@vanrein
Copy link

vanrein commented May 18, 2019

ip[nf]s://<domain.name>/object

Retrieval would be processed as "DNS look up domain.name IN TXT, resolve resulting IPFS/IPNS identifier, retrieve object".

I was reading this, hoping to find just that. IPFS wants to get away from hosting locations for reasons of persistency, but IPNS is different. I love the idea of using DNS (and DNSSEC) and getting very powerful bookmarks:

  1. Stored domain name, for human reference where it once originated from
  2. Stored IPNS key, so we can lookup the names from anyone who pins them, along with new versions from the same origin
  3. Stored IPFS hash, so we can retrieve the version that we bookmarked for as long as it is pinned

I will add the spec to my reading list, it's useful stuff!

@hsanjuan

This comment has been minimized.

@lidel

This comment has been minimized.

@hsanjuan hsanjuan transferred this issue from ipfs/in-web-browsers Apr 1, 2020
@jchris

This comment was marked as outdated.

@lidel

This comment was marked as outdated.

@BigLep
Copy link
Contributor

BigLep commented Mar 1, 2022

2022-03-01 discussion: we may add an issue for separating out the gateway tests that are in go-ipfs so have a "poor-mans" compliance test suite for gateway implementations.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
No open projects
Status: 🥞 Todo
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants