denylists: clarify doublehash way of supporting IPNS #482
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
this adds a short mention how legacy doublehash notation can be used for representing IPNS and DNSLink block rules
hsanjuan
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2024
|
@hsanjuan unsure (focused on legacy infra first), for nopfs filled ipfs-shipyard/nopfs#40 to make sure we check |
|
Thanks, I missed the notification! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds a short mention how legacy doublehash notation can be used for representing IPNS and DNSLink block rules.
Rationale
What prompted me to adding this to specs is the fact that IPNS entries (double-hashed CIDv1 with libp2p-key codec) already are on https://badbits.dwebops.pub/ and we also have cases where a very bad ENS DNSLink needs to be blocked for legal reasons.
No IPIP because it does not change spec, only clarifies how to use existing notation in mutable context, which was missing from the spec.
Ref. internal issues with additional context (sadly too sensitive, can't be public):