Soliciting Feedback: xrp-ledger.toml File

[mDuo13]

I've created a proposal for a file that would replace the old "ripple.txt" way of reporting information about how you use the XRP Ledger. (For reasons including the fact that "XRP" isn't "Ripple"!)

If adopted, I expect this could be a key piece in how validator operators verify their identity, and may also be useful for client applications for various other purposes. (For example, if the owner of an XRP Ledger address is verified, client apps could show provided contact info or description alongside that address.)

For people who run validators or actively develop tools and applications on top of the XRP Ledger, your feedback is very important because this spec doesn't serve a purpose unless you find it useful! If you fit that description, please take a look and provide your input on the draft specification here:

https://github.com/ripple/ripple-dev-portal/pull/507

[peanut56]

I have no idea what you are talking about, but thank you very much for supporting xrp and its ecosystem.

I am not a programmer, so the technical aspect or implication of the proposal to improve the protocol is over my head. I think it is a good thing that a ripple employee is reaching out to a community that has interest in the ecosystem to ask questions and is open to receiving feedback.

Edited February 5, 2019 by peanut56
clarification

[Sukrim]

Thanks a lot for basing this on Stellar's extension to the ripple.txt file format! :-)

Something that might be helpful (maybe not in this file?) would be a list of accounts that you do not claim to control, but that you want to recommend others to call by a certain name or to add some information you have about them (e.g. "known accounts: rvYAfWj5gh67oV6fW32ZzP3Aw4Eubs59B - Bitstamp issuing account"), similar to the name API.

[EdH]

3 hours ago, Sukrim said:

Something that might be helpful (maybe not in this file?) would be a list of accounts that you do not claim to control, but that you want to recommend others to call by a certain name or to add some information you have about them (e.g. "known accounts: rvYAfWj5gh67oV6fW32ZzP3Aw4Eubs59B - Bitstamp issuing account"), similar to the name API.

That's an interesting idea, but what would be the advantage for the user over grabbing the toml file over on bitstamp.com?

[Sukrim]

1 hour ago, EdH said:

That's an interesting idea, but what would be the advantage for the user over grabbing the toml file over on bitstamp.com?

If I want to operate a list of accounts that I accuse of being scammers, I guess they will probably not host xrp-ledger.toml files themselves. ;-)

I could also charge something for appearing on my list with a human readable name while giving guarantees that this mapping stays stable for x amount of time, similar to the DNS system.

[mDuo13]

For the thing you're talking about, I think using a Webfinger service might actually be appropriate. (You could, potentially, advertise the webfinger service's URL in your xrp-ledger.toml file.) I think we'd want some more specs around things like URIs and how to structure the results, but this is all stuff I explored along with people like Bob Way and Steven Zeiler circa 2015, so it's not like it's untread ground. I still have a bunch of the stuff we drafted up back then, which I could share and we could update with the community's feedback but I'd like to take things one step at a time and get a good consensus around this TOML document first.

[Sukrim]

Another use case I can think of is a "SERVERS" section that's similar to the "VALIDATORS" section, but more focused on where one can find RPC or Websocket endpoints, potentially trusted servers and their node public keys to connect to and similar.

[nikb]

While I think there’s merit in a third-party “naming” service (perhaps a collaborative effort), I don’t think that the toml file is the right place to report this information.

I agree that a section allowing a domain to specify websocket and peer connection endpoints is a good idea.

[NightJanitor]

I'm considering spinning up a validator node in the next few weeks; who do I ask for permission? (Just kidding!)

These look fine, especially since they're all optional;  I'm in favor of starting out small, otherwise nothing is done.

(I'd love to see the Bob Way notes of old, but I'd just get distracted / start thinking way past spinning up a node.)

Thanks for asking.

[EdH]

On 2/5/2019 at 11:36 AM, Sukrim said:

If I want to operate a list of accounts that I accuse of being scammers, I guess they will probably not host xrp-ledger.toml files themselves. ;-)

I could also charge something for appearing on my list with a human readable name while giving guarantees that this mapping stays stable for x amount of time, similar to the DNS system.

Yeah, those both make a lot of sense.