Re: [Din] draft-mazieres-dinrg-scp-04 peer priority algorithm

[David Mazieres <[e-mail]>]

David Mazieres <[e-mail]> writes:

>> As I understand, this filtering could lead to a situation where the
>> neighbours set is empty, since there is no guarantee that any hash
>> calculated above will be less than '2^256 * weight(peer_id)'. Is this
>> intentional?
>
> There is a guarantee, because a node must belong to all of its own
> quorum sets.  So even if a node has no other neighbors, it will still be
> its own neighbor... which highlights the fact that maybe "neighbor" is a
> misleading term here?  Or maybe at least suggests we should mention
> this.

I went to clarify this in the draft and realize it's not clear at all
because of the way slices are defined.  (You implicitly have to be in a
quorum, but it never says you are in every slice.)  So I propose the
following wording on neighbors:

   o  Define the set of nodes "neighbors(n)" as the set of nodes v for
      which "Gi(1 || n || v) < 2^{256} * weight(v)", where "1" and "n"
      are both 32-bit XDR "int" values.  Note that a node is always its
      own neighbor because conceptually a node belongs to all of its own
      quorum slices.

David