ab66e4040f
Closes Tier 1 #3. The previous §6.5 was one paragraph that named "a PROOF packet" without specifying its body shape, signing input, or explicit/implicit choice — exactly the level of vagueness that caused the SF mobile client to ship the wrong proof shape on its first cut. New §6.5 has six sub-sections: §6.5.1 Two body formats: explicit = packet_hash(32) || signature(64) = 96B implicit = signature(64) = 64B Distinguished purely by length at the receiver per PacketReceipt.validate_proof (RNS/Packet.py:497-548). §6.5.2 Sender-side policy. Opportunistic DATA proofs default to the IMPLICIT form (Reticulum.__use_implicit_proof = True at RNS/Reticulum.py:259), only switching to explicit when the operator's config sets use_implicit_proof = No. Link DATA proofs are hardcoded explicit on both emit (Link.prove_packet at RNS/Link.py:383-394) and validate (validate_link_proof at RNS/Packet.py:449-494, with the implicit branch commented out). §6.5.3 Where the proof is addressed: opportunistic -> packet_hash[:16] as a synthetic ProofDestination link -> link.link_id §6.5.4 Wire summary with byte-position ladders for both forms. §6.5.5 Receiver tolerance: validators MUST accept both 64- and 96-byte bodies for opportunistic DATA proofs since the upstream default differs from what most non-RNS clients assume. §6.5.6 Restates the Link-DATA mandatory-receipt rule with context-byte clarification. Side fix: §2.5 contexts table description for LINKPROOF (0xFD) corrected. The constant is defined upstream but NOT actually emitted by either Identity.prove or Link.prove_packet — both build their proof packets with packet_type = PROOF and context = NONE (0x00). LINKPROOF (0xFD) is reserved but unused in RNS 1.2.0; the proof-ness of a packet is conveyed by packet_type, not context. todo.md gets a new "tools/verify_proof_packet.py" entry under the runtime-verifier section to lock the explicit/implicit dispatch in with a runtime test. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| flows | ||
| test-vectors | ||
| tools | ||
| agent.md | ||
| LICENSE | ||
| README.md | ||
| SPEC.md | ||
| todo.md | ||
Reticulum Specifications
Byte-level interoperability specifications for the Reticulum Network Stack and LXMF — the parts that aren't in the upstream manuals but are needed to build a working client from scratch.
Upstream Reticulum has excellent operator-facing documentation (config, deployment, design philosophy). What's missing — and what every alternative implementation has had to reverse-engineer from the Python source — is an authoritative wire-level spec: header bit layouts, msgpack field types, signature input formats, the exact behavior of Transport.outbound, and the long list of "would never guess from reading the manual" gotchas that cost hours of debugging each.
This repo collects those findings in one place. The hope is that future client authors (Kotlin, Swift, Rust, Go, embedded C — pick your stack) can read this instead of re-deriving everything from RNS/Transport.py.
Status
Early days, contributions welcome. Current content was bootstrapped from the working notes of two reverse-engineering efforts:
- The web-based Reticulum client at
reticulum-lora-webclient - The native Android client at
reticulum-mobile-app
Each finding is grounded in upstream source citations (file + line) so it can be re-verified as RNS evolves.
What's here
SPEC.md— the single combined spec document, organized by protocol layerflows/— chronological end-to-end narratives (e.g. "send a message"), cross-referencing SPEC.md sectionstools/— self-contained Python verifier scripts that test SPEC.md claims against upstream RNS / LXMFtest-vectors/— known-good byte sequences each implementation should be able to round-trip (intent: grow into a compliance suite)
As content grows, SPEC.md will be split into per-layer files (packet header, identity, announce, token-crypto, LXMF, link, resource, transport).
Scope
In scope:
- Wire formats: byte layouts, field encodings, framing
- Signing inputs and what's hashed where
- Cross-cutting behaviors required for interop (path requests, ratchet rotation, retransmit semantics)
- "Gotchas" — things upstream code does that aren't obvious from the manual or RFC-style sketches
- Test vectors that any implementation must be able to round-trip
Out of scope:
- Operator/user documentation — see the official manual
- API design choices for any specific implementation
- Networking layer config (interfaces, transport modes) — already well documented
Source citations
Where a finding cites upstream Python code, the path is relative to a standard pip install rns lxmf installation, e.g. RNS/Transport.py, LXMF/LXMF.py. Where the bundled umsgpack is referenced, the path is RNS/vendor/umsgpack.py.
When upstream code changes such that a citation no longer matches, file an issue or PR — the goal is to track the de-facto wire spec as it actually behaves, not as it was at any single snapshot.
Contributing
If you've debugged a Reticulum interop problem and the answer wasn't in the upstream docs, please add it. Format:
### N.M Short description of the finding
**Symptom:** what you observed that prompted the investigation.
**What's happening:** the actual mechanism, ideally with upstream source citation (file + line).
**Implication / fix:** what an implementation must do to interop.
**Source:** upstream file paths and approximate line numbers.
Add a worked test vector to test-vectors/ if the finding is byte-level.
License
CC BY 4.0 — use freely, attribution appreciated.