#ls2 (irc2p) | #ls2 proposal review channel : Upcoming reviews Tuesdays 8 PM UTC: prop. 163 Mar. 4; prop 169 Mar. 18; prop. 167 Apr. 1

zzz reminder: proposal 167 review today 8 PM UTC here

Leopold Is this meetup only for devs?

zzz all are welcome

zzz but please read the proposal in advance if you plan to participate

zzz i2p-projekt.i2p/spec/proposals/167

not_bob_afk Test

orignal n

eyedeekay Anybody here?

not_bob *** nods ***

altonen hi

eyedeekay hi altonen, not_bob

eyedeekay probably just wait a few for the others

orignal hi

eyedeekay hi orignal

orignal so?

eyedeekay Pretty tough to make a decision on this without zzz but it seems pointless to sit in silence so we may as well discuss the proposal while we're all here

eyedeekay For the people watching is proposition 167, which uses the LeaseSet options field to publish service(SRV) records

orignal let's wait for him

orignal and drozd

eyedeekay OK

zzz test test

eyedeekay pong

zzz test test

eyedeekay you're here from my side

zzz I've been here since top of the hour, typing away

not_bob zzz: The mic seems to work.

orignal pong

zzz didyou see any of it?

not_bob Only the test test, twice.

zzz I was connected, seeing ping/pong the whole time

zzz sorry about that, never happened before

zzz anyway I'll paste in from 20 minutes ago

orignal maybe you will implement tunnel switch after this

zzz <zzz> 0) Hi

zzz <zzz> hi

zzz <zzz> If you're here, please say hi, even if you're only planning to lurk

zzz <zzz> today we're reviewing proposal 167

zzz <zzz> this is the first of three reviews, one every two weeks

zzz <zzz> I'll give an overview, and then throw it open for general comments

zzz <zzz> and then we can go into details if necessary

zzz <zzz> at the end, we'll decide if it's ok as is, or with minor revisions, or we need another review, or we really don't like it

zzz <zzz> anybody here please say hi

zzz <zzz> this started last summer with a thread on i2pforum about running your own mail server

zzz <zzz> the problem is discovery - who is running a mail server, where is it?

zzz <zzz> this solves the problem by adding "SRV" or "service" records to leasesets

zzz <zzz> similar to SRV or MX records in DNS

zzz <zzz> it's generalizable for any service

zzz <zzz> so the proposal is in two parts:

zzz <zzz> 1) the format of the service records in the leaseset

zzz <zzz> 2) how an application can get access to the service records via I2CP or SAM

zzz <zzz> this proposal is the generic parts only, it is not specific to email

zzz <zzz> any specifics on email records might be documented later

zzz <zzz> EOT

zzz <zzz> any general thoughts?

not_bob I have nothing specific to add. Just want to go on record for being here.

orignal so, you want to embed address strijng to LS?

altonen i had one dq

zzz embed "SRV" or "service" records into LS2, yes orignal

orignal but it's still not clear how you are going to lookup

altonen if the LS service record contains a service record for another lease set, in the example aaa...b32.i2p points to bbbb...b32.i2p, is the asusmption that bbbbb..b32.i2p is transient?

zzz <zzz> this is basically a replacement for 'Service Lists' that was semi-documented in propsal 123 (LS2) long ago

altonen why couldn't i fetch bbbbb..b32.i2p directly?

orignal say I need to connect to zzz.i2p and I never saw it before

zzz no that's not the assumption altonen

zzz say I run an email server on email.stats.i2p, and I want email for me@zzz.i2p and me@stats.i2p to both go there

orignal I undesrtstand that once I see a LS I can add it to my local adressbook

orignal ok that's for e-mail only

zzz but since people may not have email.stats.i2p in their addressbook,you probably want to put the b32 in the service record

eyedeekay I might be wrong, but I have myself convinced that SAM and I2CP clients need a way to set these records to be published as a part of 2. Sounds like we need to take turns also

altonen ok ty zzz

zzz so far I'm keeping up, I think? have I not answered anything so far?

zzz it's for any service, email is just the example, and the reason I got started on this

zzz any other general questions?

zzz or specific questions?

eyedeekay How does an email service which is running as a SAM client set the correct options to publish? Does it happen automatically somehow or do they need a way to configure it?

not_bob From what I can tell, this does not appear to change the way we do domain registration and tracker. It only handles what services are run on specific hosts, yes?

orignal if I can specify any addrees I can spoof someone else's

zzz yes idk there will have to be some I2CP config to specify what to put in the LS2; that's not defined in the proposal

not_bob s/trafcker/tracking

orignal right we should have some I2CP params

zzz orignal, this is your signed leaseset. If you want to send your email to me, you can do that

orignal and I can do it to flood you

zzz well, you can spam my email server by yourself, you don't need to forward your own mail to me for that

orignal please explain again. say I run 333.i2p and someone want to send e-mail to orignal@333.i2p

zzz are you running an email server or not?

orignal I publish a mailserver address in 333.i2p LS

orignal and send must talked to that adddress for mail

orignal that's how I understand it

zzz so I fetch the 333.i2p LS, find out your mailserver address, and send the email there

orignal then why you can't just send to 333.i2p:25?

orignal I don't understand the actual purpose

orignal what are we trying to achieve?

zzz because:

orignal ?

zzz 1) I don't know if you are running a server on 333.i2p:25

zzz 2) you may be running a mailserver on a different destination

zzz 3) you may wish to redirect your email to orignal@mail.i2p

zzz eot

zzz this solves all 3 issues

orignal well

orignal my concern is

orignal we actually have only one mailserver in I2P

zzz true, and this is how we fix that

orignal how would this proposal change the situation?

zzz by allowing people to run their own servers, and others to find them

orignal will postman agree to change the logic of mail.i2p?

orignal 2. how should postfix resolve it?

zzz don't know, but his approval isn't required for internal P2P mail, only for forwarding external mail to other servers

orignal well let's do it without him

zzz if you hate the proposal, there's no need to ask him ))

orignal I run postfix on 333.i2p and publish such record, you also run on zzz.i2p

zzz I don't know anything about postfix, can't answer that

orignal how can must postfix send e-mail to zzz.i2p?

eyedeekay It seems to me that the logic of mail servers themselves wouldn't need to change as long as it was configurable at the i2ptunnel level

orignal not necessary postfix, any mailserve app

orignal what client potocol would be used?

zzz we'd have to have some SMTP proxy tunnel type that looked at the headers and sent things the right way

orignal or separate mail client will be required?

zzz SMTP

orignal so new kink of proxy tunnel

orignal *kind

orignal and postfix must be instructed to work through such proxy

zzz for external clients, yes. That would be later. For starters, just susimail or other internal client

orignal well, I'm instered to make postfix working for the beginning

orignal and need to understand the scope

zzz basically, teach susimail how to send to servers other than postman's

zzz well, the scope could be medium or it could be large.

orignal excuse me, what is susimail? ))

orignal and what protocol doed it use?

zzz but this proposal is not about actually doing email. It's only about service records

zzz susimail is our bundled webmail client

zzz it talks SMTP and POP to postman

orignal you want to publish service record in options

orignal that we ignore now

zzz correct

zzz that's part 1.

zzz part 2 is getting the options through I2CP and SAM

orignal part 2 is obvious

orignal we need more I2CP params

zzz i2cp.stickThisInTheLeaseset=foo

zzz can we go back to general reactions? I can't tell if you guys like it or hate it or aren't sure

orignal fine for me

orignal however not useable in i2pd

altonen_ +1

orignal until there is SMTP tunel

eyedeekay Could some kind of DNS proxy provide an interface? Like you make a request for a host to a DNS-like service locally, get a SRV record back in a DNS-like format, and make the SMTP server talk to that? Probably out of scope for the proposal discussion but it seems like there is a way to build a bridge to a protocol other applications already speak?

zzz for outbound email, yes orignal you would need a proxy. To run a server for inbound email, you don't need any special tunnel

eyedeekay I actually like it

zzz eyedeekay, the LS2 records _is_ the DNS

orignal but who needs e-mail without an ability to reply?

zzz if we want to run 'real' DNS, or GNS, that would be indicated in a service records

orignal so I need to start with SMTP proxy tunnel

zzz true, receive-only email isn't great, but it's one place to start

zzz I'm not sure email is even the best application for this. Everybody knows running an email server is a headache

zzz but maybe some people wouldn't mind.

orignal come on. I run mailserver in clearnet

orignal R4SAS is doing it too

zzz ok, two people who aren't scared

zzz I gave up years ago

orignal hence is not rare thing and peope are familiar with it

orignal and it's always a question at Ilita

orignal how to run own mail server

eyedeekay At least some of the stuff that sucks about running an email server on clearnet would suck less in I2P what with the corporate gatekeeping

orignal in I2P

eyedeekay And I'd love to add this to dendrite

zzz eyedeekay, does my LS2 == DNS argument make any sense?

eyedeekay Sort of but just to make make sure can I explain what I was positing a little more clearly?

zzz shoot

eyedeekay Hypothetically an application that doesn't have a way to get these addresses from one of our API's, it has no way to do a LS lookup on it's own, expects to get records from DNS, needs to get them from I2P, could an application "convert" our SRV records into DNS SRV records to give it I2P addresses to send to like a SOCKS proxy or something

eyedeekay By acting like a DNS server but handling this case

zzz yeah, like a DNS-to-LS-looker-upper proxy?

eyedeekay exactly yes

zzz doable but not sure how that fits into the big picture

zzz seems like that function gets embedded in the SMTP proxy

zzz any other questions or discussion?

eyedeekay Yeah I'm not sure it's big picture thinking, just wondering about making applications talking to it, thanks for answering

eyedeekay *talk

eyedeekay No more from me

orignal no

orignal let's agree about i2cp params

zzz I view this proposal as a framework to enable more p2p applications. It doesn't actually obligate us to build any of those applications

zzz what's your proposed i2cp parameter orignal?

orignal I'm not a native speaker

orignal i2cp.srvname[number]

orignal like this

orignal the point it might be many

zzz should I go off and think about it and we should schedule another review?

zzz maybe next time we can get drz to show up

zzz how about we schedule a re-review for 6 weeks from now, April 1

eyedeekay I think we probably need to have the i2cp parameters ready for services to publish themselves for it to be useful so probably another review would be good, April 1 is OK with me

orignal fine

zzz this was a little chaotic with my weird IRC shadowban. I saw what everybody was typing and I saw the irc layer ping/pong working

zzz ok then I guess that's about it

zzz two weeks from now is datagram2

orignal yes

orignal datagram2 is a lot to say

orignal it was not shadowban you tunnel just died

orignal and your din't not notice

zzz can't wait, you have me curious

orignal can't wait what?

zzz tunnel didn't die, I was sending pings and getting pongs, and the server never disconnected me

zzz I restarted my client to fix it

zzz can't wait to hear what you have to say about datagram2 ))

zzz thanks everybody, sorry again for the strange IRC snafu

orignal but you know already

eyedeekay Thanks zzz

orignal we need to calculate RTT somehow

orignal for congestion control, etc.

zzz wrong layer

zzz or a different protocol

orignal zzz, are you connected directly of through a bouncer?

zzz direct

orignal why?

orignal it might be your bouncer who sent pongs

orignal not server

orignal that's what we should discuss

zzz if you want congestion control, that's either on top of DG2 or a replacement for DG2

zzz just like RTP, wireguard, uTP, QUIC, etc. are on top of UDP

zzz DG2 is to fix exactly two problems with DG1. Thats it.

orignal but we agreed to add options

zzz yes, thats in there