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

(bug)signatureV1 vs signature #217

Closed
DougAnderson444 opened this issue Apr 17, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #234
Closed

(bug)signatureV1 vs signature #217

DougAnderson444 opened this issue Apr 17, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #234

Comments

@DougAnderson444
Copy link

optional bytes signature = 2;

Isn't this supposed to be signatureV1 in accordance with the spec and go-impl:

https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipns/blob/72be64e27e743b828fe4eb8a721abd1b97610421/pb/ipns.proto#L13

@welcome
Copy link

welcome bot commented Apr 17, 2023

Thank you for submitting your first issue to this repository! A maintainer will be here shortly to triage and review.
In the meantime, please double-check that you have provided all the necessary information to make this process easy! Any information that can help save additional round trips is useful! We currently aim to give initial feedback within two business days. If this does not happen, feel free to leave a comment.
Please keep an eye on how this issue will be labeled, as labels give an overview of priorities, assignments and additional actions requested by the maintainers:

  • "Priority" labels will show how urgent this is for the team.
  • "Status" labels will show if this is ready to be worked on, blocked, or in progress.
  • "Need" labels will indicate if additional input or analysis is required.

Finally, remember to use https://discuss.ipfs.io if you just need general support.

@achingbrain
Copy link
Member

The field name is not written into the protobuf, only the field number so this is compatible with go-ipns and isn't a bug in terms of behaviour, though it would be good to use the same field name as the spec.

achingbrain added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 15, 2023
Adds a `v1Compatible` option when creating IPNS records that will cause the V1 signature
to be added to the record.  This option defaults to true, in the future it will be changed to
false.

The value types have also been updated to make it harder to create invalid records.  It now
accepts only CIDs, PeerIds, or arbitrary path strings prefixed with `"/"`.

BREAKING CHANGE: all /ipns/* keys are now encoded as base36 encoded CIDv1 libp2p-cid

Closes #217

---------

Co-authored-by: Marcin Rataj <lidel@lidel.org>
Co-authored-by: Alex Potsides <alex@achingbrain.net>
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 15, 2023
## [7.0.0](v6.0.7...v7.0.0) (2023-09-15)

### ⚠ BREAKING CHANGES

* all /ipns/* keys are now encoded as base36 encoded CIDv1 libp2p-cid

### Features

* opt-in V2-only records, IPIP-428 verification ([#234](#234)) ([df71fed](df71fed)), closes [#217](#217)
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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants