a1ec6ce7fd
Closes the highest-priority Tier 1 gap. Without this, a from-scratch
client can't learn any peers exist; known_destinations stays empty and
every outbound message fails at recall(dest_hash).
SPEC.md §4.5 (new): announce validation rules with full citations to
RNS/Identity.py::validate_announce (line 496) and the dispatch path in
RNS/Transport.py:1623-2024. Covers the body parse with context_flag
branch, signed_data reconstruction (including the empty-bytes-not-absent
ratchet rule), Ed25519 signature verification, dest_hash recomputation,
public-key collision rejection, blackhole list, cache update order
(known_destinations -> known_ratchets -> path_table), PATH_RESPONSE
distinction, and the implementation-private SHOULD rules around
ingress rate limiting, random_blob history caps, and self-announce
filtering.
flows/receive-announce.md: chronological walk through 9 steps from
deframing to handler dispatch, with the cheap-pre-filter design
(signature-checked-then-counted) called out, the burst-active ingress
limiter explained against IC_BURST_FREQ_NEW=6Hz / IC_BURST_FREQ=35Hz,
the path-table decision tree, and the announce_handlers fan-out with
aspect_filter and PATH_RESPONSE filtering. Ends with a wire-byte
diagram and a per-step source map.
Two side fixes found while drafting:
- SPEC.md §4.1 had random_hash described as "10 random bytes". It's
actually random_hash = get_random_hash()[0:5] + int(time.time()).to_bytes(5, "big")
per RNS/Destination.py:282. Transit relays parse the trailing 5
bytes via timebase_from_random_blob (RNS/Transport.py:3100) for
replay-ordering decisions.
- SPEC.md §2.5 contexts table was missing PATH_RESPONSE = 0x0B
(RNS/Packet.py:83).
flows/README.md status table updated; the priority-ordered todo list
also gets a few new entries spun off from the work
(send-announce, forward-announce, send-resource, path-discovery flows).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.5 KiB
2.5 KiB
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 |
✅ |
receive-link-lxmf.md (inverse of send-link-lxmf, including responder side of the handshake) |
⏳ |
send-propagated-lxmf.md (PROPAGATED method, via a propagation node) |
⏳ |
send-announce.md (build, sign, transmit, ratchet rotation, periodic re-announce) |
⏳ |
forward-announce.md (transport-node rebroadcast logic, announce_cap, queue) |
⏳ |
path-discovery.md (path? request, path-response wire detail, path-table population) |
⏳ |
send-resource.md (Resource fragmentation over a Link) |
⏳ |
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.