John Poole
4a14dca3a4
Key findings: Valid established-Link traffic uses HEADER_1 and link_table. HEADER_2 Link traffic can cross the addressed relay, then is dropped by the next node. Relay forwarding requires correct interface and hop count. Relay forwarding does not require IDX_LT_VALIDATED or destination_type=LINK. Endpoint Link delivery does require destination_type=LINK. Link-addressed PROOF uses link_table; ordinary DATA proofs use reverse_table. Added: Tier 1 audit Transport-Link flow Verifier Deterministic vectors Updated SPEC.md, playbook.md, README files, and existing Link flow documentation. Verification: Deterministic vector regeneration: identical SHA-256 Full pinned suite: 21 passed, 0 failed git diff --check: passed No commit created. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| forward-announce.md | ||
| lxmf-outbound-retry.md | ||
| path-discovery.md | ||
| propagation-peer-sync.md | ||
| README.md | ||
| receive-announce.md | ||
| receive-link-lxmf.md | ||
| receive-opportunistic-lxmf.md | ||
| receive-propagated-lxmf.md | ||
| receive-resource.md | ||
| send-announce.md | ||
| send-link-lxmf.md | ||
| send-opportunistic-lxmf.md | ||
| send-propagated-lxmf.md | ||
| send-resource.md | ||
| transport-link.md | ||
Flows
End-to-end chronological narratives for common Reticulum operations. Where SPEC.md is organized by layer (identity, header, token crypto, announce, LXMF, link, transport, framing), the documents here are organized by operation and walk through what each layer contributes in order — app-call → wire bytes.
The two views are complementary: SPEC.md tells you what each piece looks like; the flows tell you when each piece runs and what calls what. A flow document should not introduce new normative claims — every byte-level detail should be a cross-reference to the relevant SPEC.md section. If you find yourself describing wire bytes here that aren't in SPEC.md, that's a sign the spec has a gap to fill.
Status
| Flow | Status |
|---|---|
send-opportunistic-lxmf.md |
✅ |
receive-opportunistic-lxmf.md |
✅ |
send-link-lxmf.md (DIRECT method, over a Reticulum Link) |
✅ |
receive-announce.md |
✅ |
send-resource.md (Resource fragmentation over a Link) |
✅ |
path-discovery.md (path? request, path-response wire detail, path-table population) |
✅ |
receive-resource.md (inverse of send-resource: ADV ingestion, part assembly, proof emission) |
✅ |
receive-link-lxmf.md (inverse of send-link-lxmf, including responder side of the handshake) |
✅ |
send-announce.md (build, sign, transmit, ratchet rotation, periodic re-announce) |
✅ |
forward-announce.md (transport-node rebroadcast logic, announce_cap, queue) |
✅ |
send-propagated-lxmf.md (PROPAGATED method, via a propagation node) |
✅ |
receive-propagated-lxmf.md (recipient pulling messages via /get) |
✅ |
propagation-peer-sync.md (propagation-node announce, /offer, and peer Resource sync) |
✅ |
lxmf-outbound-retry.md (process_outbound retry loop, per-message state machine, fail_message) |
✅ |
Conventions
- Each flow targets one specific upstream operation.
send-opportunistic-lxmf.mddocuments whatLXMRouter.handle_outbound(lxm)does for an opportunistic message; it does not also cover Link or propagation paths — those get their own docs so the chronology stays linear. - Numbered steps are chronological. Each step that produces wire bytes cross-references the SPEC.md section that defines those bytes.
- Source citations use the standard
pip install rns lxmfinstall layout (RNS/,LXMF/) with file + line. Line numbers are pinned to the RNS / LXMF version named at the top of each flow; out-of-date line numbers should be fixed in a PR. - "Verified" claims must be backed by a
tools/script per../agent.md§1. Flow docs inherit the verification status of the SPEC.md sections they reference — if a flow step relies on an unverified SPEC.md callout, the flow should mark that step as inheriting the unverified status rather than silently treat it as fact.