Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 29, 2022. It is now read-only.

stub for car file format #229

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

stub for car file format #229

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

mishmosh
Copy link
Contributor

  • Started a markdown file in the block header section (is that the correct folder?)
  • Added diagram that @vmx wants to refer to
  • Explicitly added "open problems" and "header format" sections

Also note: did not add to README list yet.

@rvagg
Copy link
Member

rvagg commented Jan 2, 2020

Hey @mishmosh I've been referring to CAR as "Content ARchive" or "Content Addressable aRchive" and https://github.com/ipfs/go-car has "A content addressible archive utility" as its description. I'm happy to switch to "Certified Archive" but is this a consensus name that's used by others? And if not, should I use these docs to try and drive a consensus on the name (I'd probably choose "Content Addressable aRchive")?

rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 3, 2020
rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 3, 2020
rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 3, 2020
@rvagg rvagg mentioned this pull request Jan 3, 2020
@jbenet
Copy link
Contributor

jbenet commented Jan 6, 2020

quick thoughts on name (thanks @mishmosh for the ping):

  • I think Content Addressed aRchive works (second name), and gets part of the way there to explaining the properties
    • unfortunately not all content-addressing is secure hash linked addressing, or it would imply most/all. maybe some day most people will only think hash-linking when thinking content-addressing, but we're not there yet, as some communities use content-addressing modes which are not hash-linked
  • I think Content ARchive does not work, as content does not imply content addressing, hash-linking, or security of any kind, and does not distinguish it from other archive formats, which also archive content. a tarball is an archive of content as any other. Content ARchive is only novel/different and not a very useful name (this is likely to be a shorthand name though, so we'll have to refer to it somewhere)
  • I think Certified ARchive (first name) works too, and also gets part of the way there, it follows prior cryptography and crypto-systems nomenclature.
    • especially if the CAR header (as originally hoped for) has room to carry an optional digital signature over the header hash (plus the associated public key chain up to some root (eg root CA cert))
    • alternative name previously considered: SAR -- Secure ARchive, but discarded in light of the car pun :D, and the inevitable self-fulfilling prophesy of naming something "Secure X" :S
  • i'm fine with either Content Addressed Archive and Certified ARchive as a name
    • i like both a lot :), slight pref to "Content Addressed aRchive"
    • i would encourage us to keep the other name in the readme, as an "alternate name" as some utilities sometimes do

@rvagg rvagg closed this in 71ef2bd Feb 3, 2020
prataprc pushed a commit to iprs-dev/ipld-specs that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants