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

Clarify BeaconBlockAndBlobsSidecarByRoot no blob available #3154

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 21, 2022

Conversation

dapplion
Copy link
Collaborator

Peers may not know the slot of a block when requesting by root. So they may request a root via BeaconBlockAndBlobsSidecarByRoot which does not have any associated blob.

This situation only applies before finalizing EIP4844_FORK_EPOCH. From discussions in #3139 a simple solution that requires a retry is the best trade-off to minimize complexity.

I picked the error code 3: ResourceUnavailable without strong reasoning. Happy to change to another more meaningful one.

Copy link
Contributor

@djrtwo djrtwo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice!

specs/eip4844/p2p-interface.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
specs/eip4844/p2p-interface.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@dapplion
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@djrtwo thanks for the feedback, applied comments. Should there be a sentence noting the consequences of that line if finalized_epoch < current_epoch - MIN_EPOCHS_FOR_BLOBS_SIDECARS_REQUESTS?

@djrtwo
Copy link
Contributor

djrtwo commented Dec 15, 2022

@dapplion Is that because you don't think the max is clear enough and want to make sure it's called out explictly? or something else

@dapplion
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Wording is clear to us, but the consequences as discussed today are important. So I feel that (for new readers for example) calling out that nuance is a useful pointer

Copy link
Contributor

@djrtwo djrtwo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm fine with an explicit line @dapplion but also happy to merge as is

Copy link
Contributor

@g11tech g11tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lgtm

@djrtwo
Copy link
Contributor

djrtwo commented Dec 21, 2022

merging! feel free to add an additional comment in another PR

@djrtwo djrtwo merged commit e6f5ab9 into ethereum:dev Dec 21, 2022
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Dec 21, 2022

😱...estoy atónito!!!!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Deneb was called: eip-4844 scope:networking
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants