RFC structure improvement about rfcs HOT 11 CLOSED

❓ Why was the ledger and implementation detail information split up (i.e. why is RFC004 and RFC005 not in the same file)?

Because one RFC is about introducing the basic definition for the given ledger. Another RFC is about defining basic swaps on the ledger.
We find it cleaner this way.

from rfcs.

❓ Why was the ledger and implementation detail information split up (i.e. why is RFC004 and RFC005 not in the same file)?

Because one RFC is about introducing the basic definition for the given ledger. Another RFC is about defining basic swaps on the ledger.
We find it cleaner this way.

So RFC004 specifies the details of RFC002 for Bitcoin and RFC005 specifies the details of RFC003 for Bitcoin? Or are both RFC004 and RFC005 specifying details for RFC003?

from rfcs.

💡 The thoughts from above lead to the conclusion that it could help to separate the asset from the "ledger".

Yes, the ledger is separated from the asset.
Ledgers: Ethereum, Bitcoin blockchain, Lightning Network, Liquid Network
Assets: Ether, ERC20 token, Bitcoin

From "🤔 Here are some more of my thoughts - hopefully this can spark helpful discussion:" and below, you are in line with what we think.

from rfcs.

So RFC004 specifies the details of RFC002 for Bitcoin and RFC005 specifies the details of RFC003 for Bitcoin

Correct

from rfcs.

💡 The thoughts from above lead to the conclusion that it could help to separate the asset from the "ledger".

Yes, the ledger is separated from the asset.
Ledgers: Ethereum, Bitcoin blockchain, Lightning Network, Liquid Network
Assets: Ether, ERC20 token, Bitcoin

From "🤔 Here are some more of my thoughts - hopefully this can spark helpful discussion:" and below, you are in line with what we think.

I don't think so - I am proposing to remove the ledger from the SWAP protocol and specify it one level down in the hierarchy. (i.e. remove alpha and beta ledger from SWAP...). I am not sure it is a good idea - I just tried to find out what bugged me with the way we add lightning and think about the protocol in general 😄

from rfcs.

Proposed structure:

- Messaging in COMIT (network communication): RFC-001-BAM.md (might be replaced with libp2p)
- Ledgers & Assets definitions:
   - RFC-004-Bitcoin.md
   - RFC-006-Ethereum.md
   - RFC-008-ERC20.md
- Protocol Families
   - RFC-002-SWAP.md
- SWAP Protocols
   - RFC-003-SWAP-Basic.md
   - Implementation Details for SWAP Basic
        - RFC-005-SWAP-Basic-Bitcoin.md
        - RFC-007-SWAP-Basic-Ether.md
        - RFC-009-SWAP-Basic-ERC20.md

from rfcs.

@D4nte I updated the issue description and added a Dod. Minor modification of your proposed structure here:

...
- SWAP Protocols
   - SWAP Basic - Atomic Swaps using Basic HTLCs
      - RFC-003-SWAP-Basic.md
...

Won't do changes until groomed 😉

from rfcs.

I wouldn't not remove the numering in file names but rename to "Basic HTLC Atomic Swap"

from rfcs.

I wouldn't not remove the numering in file names

+1

but rename to "Basic HTLC Atomic Swap"

This is linked to #77

As stated on that issue I don't like the use of subjective terms like 'basic', they are at risk of becoming stale, we also need a variable name and a string to send over the wire based on this title.

from rfcs.

As stated on that issue I don't like the use of subjective terms like 'basic', they are at risk of becoming stale, we also need a variable name and a string to send over the wire based on this title.

"Basic" makes sense to me, happy to discuss more with you/team.

from rfcs.

@bonomat=stalbot:

old and untouched.

from rfcs.