mirror of
https://github.com/matrix-construct/construct
synced 2024-11-25 16:22:35 +01:00
ircd:Ⓜ️ Update README.
This commit is contained in:
Jason Volk
parent
55a8391e48
commit
a077766812
1 changed files with 158 additions and 38 deletions
|
|
@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
|
|||
# Matrix Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
### Introduction
|
||||
## Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
*The authoritative place for learning about matrix is at [matrix.org](https://matrix.org) but
|
||||
it may be worthwhile to spend a moment and consider this introduction which explains things
|
||||
by distilling the formal core of the protocol before introducing all of the networking and
|
||||
communicative accoutrements...*
|
||||
|
||||
#### Identity
|
||||
### Identity
|
||||
|
||||
The Matrix-ID or `mxid` is a universally unique plain-text string allowing
|
||||
an entity to be addressed internet-wide which is fundamental to the matrix
|
||||
|
|
@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ mxid: "@user:host" where `host` is a public DNS name, `user` is a party to
|
|||
character, called a `sigil`, is defined to be '!' for `room_id` identifiers,
|
||||
'$' for `event_id` identifiers, '#' for room aliases, and '@' for users.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Event
|
||||
### Event
|
||||
|
||||
The fundamental primitive of this protocol is the `event` object. This object
|
||||
contains some set of key/value pairs and the protocol defines a list of such keys
|
||||
|
|
@ -57,17 +57,16 @@ describes an *abstract state machine* which has its state updated by an event, i
|
|||
addition to providing a standard means for communication of events between parties
|
||||
over the internet. That's it.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Timeline
|
||||
### Timeline
|
||||
|
||||
The data tape of the matrix machine consists of a singly-linked list of `event`
|
||||
objects with each referencing the `event_id` of its preceding parent somewhere
|
||||
objects with each referencing the `event_id` of its preceding parents somewhere
|
||||
in the `prev_` keys; this is called the `timeline`. Each event is signed by its
|
||||
creator and affirms all referenced events preceding it. This is a very similar
|
||||
structure to that used by software like Git, and Bitcoin. It allows looking back
|
||||
into the past from any point, but doesn't force a party to accept a future and
|
||||
leaves dispute resolution open-ended (which will be explained later).
|
||||
into the past from any point.
|
||||
|
||||
#### State
|
||||
### State
|
||||
|
||||
The `state` consists of a subset of events which are accumulated according to a
|
||||
few rules when playing the tape through the machine. Events which are selected
|
||||
|
|
@ -87,7 +86,7 @@ singleton `state` events, like an `m.room.create` event. The `state_key`
|
|||
is used to represent a set, like with `m.room.member` events, where the
|
||||
value of the `state_key` is a user `mxid`.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Rooms
|
||||
### Room
|
||||
|
||||
The `room` structure encapsulates an instance of the matrix machine. A room
|
||||
is a container of `event` objects in the form of a timeline. The query
|
||||
|
|
@ -126,16 +125,39 @@ type events ourselves. This project tends to create events in the namespace
|
|||
`ircd.*` These events should not alter the room's functionality for a client
|
||||
with knowledge of only the published `m.room.*` events wouldn't understand.
|
||||
|
||||
### Server
|
||||
|
||||
#### Coherence
|
||||
Matrix rooms are intended to be distributed entities that are replicated by
|
||||
all participating servers. It is important to make this clear by contrasting
|
||||
it with a common assumption that rooms are "hosted" by some entity. For example
|
||||
when one sees an `mxid` such as `!matrix:matrix.org` it is incorrect to assume
|
||||
that `matrix.org` is "hosting" this room or that it plays any critical role in
|
||||
its operation.
|
||||
|
||||
Matrix is specified as a directed acyclic graph of messages. The conversation of
|
||||
messages moves in one direction: past to future. Messages only reference other
|
||||
messages which have a lower degree of separation indicated by the `depth` from
|
||||
the first message in the graph (where `type` was `m.room.create`). Specifically,
|
||||
each message makes a reference to all known messages at the last `depth`, or all
|
||||
previously unknown messages at some lower `depth`. Each new message is broadcast
|
||||
to all participants in a room.
|
||||
Servers are simply obliged to adhere to the rules of the protocol. There is no
|
||||
cryptographic guarantee that rules will be followed (e.g. zkSNARK), and no
|
||||
central server to query as an authority. Servers should disregard violations
|
||||
of the protocol as the room unfolds from the point of its creation.
|
||||
|
||||
The notion of hosting does exist for room aliases. In the above example the
|
||||
room mxid `!matrix:matrix.org` may be referred to by `#matrix:matrix.org`.
|
||||
As an analogy, if one considers the room mxid to be an IP address then the
|
||||
alias is like a domain name pointing to the IP address. The example alias is
|
||||
hosted by `matrix.org` under their authority and may be directed to any room
|
||||
mxid. The alias is not useful when its host is not available, but the room
|
||||
itself is still available from all other servers.
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication
|
||||
|
||||
Servers communicate by broadcasting events to all other servers joined to the
|
||||
room. When a server wishes to broadcast a message, it constructs an event which
|
||||
references all previous events in the timeline which have not yet been
|
||||
referenced. This forms a directed acyclic graph of events, or DAG.
|
||||
|
||||
The conversation of messages moves in one direction: past to future. Messages
|
||||
only reference other messages which have a lower degree of separation indicated
|
||||
by the `depth` from the first message in the graph (where `type` was
|
||||
`m.room.create`).
|
||||
|
||||
* The monotonic increase in `depth` contributes to an intuitive "light cone"
|
||||
read coherence. Knowledge of any piece of information (like an event) offers
|
||||
|
|
@ -147,35 +169,133 @@ depth from independent actors and multiple reference trees may form
|
|||
independent of others. This provides the scalar for performance in a large
|
||||
distributed internet system.
|
||||
|
||||
References to previous events:
|
||||
#### DAG
|
||||
|
||||
The DAG is a tool which aids with the presentation of a coherent conversation
|
||||
for the room in lieu of the relaxed write consistency as previously mentioned.
|
||||
This tool is not very difficult to comprehend, it only becomes complicated in
|
||||
the most academically contrived corner-cases -- most of which are born out of
|
||||
malice.
|
||||
|
||||
In the following diagrams each box represents a message and their reference
|
||||
connections in the timeline, which begins at the top and flows down. For the
|
||||
sake of simplicity one can consider each message to always be sent by a
|
||||
different server in the room.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Over the lifetime of the average room, for an overwhelming majority of that
|
||||
time, the DAG is linear.
|
||||
|
||||
[M00]
|
||||
|
|
||||
[M01]
|
||||
|
|
||||
[M02]
|
||||
|
|
||||
[M03]
|
||||
|
|
||||
[M04]
|
||||
|
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This is because computers and the modern internet are actually quite fast. Even
|
||||
in the broadcast model for reasonably large room, a server will have conveyed
|
||||
an event to all other servers, or at least to the next server which will
|
||||
transmit, before there is any conflict. This is the overwhelming majority of
|
||||
cases.
|
||||
|
||||
For example, consider this curve from data collected in
|
||||
#matrix-architecture:matrix.org. The number of references an event makes
|
||||
is the key, and the count of events which has made that number of references
|
||||
is the value.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1: 6848
|
||||
2: 248
|
||||
3: 7
|
||||
4: 1
|
||||
5: 1
|
||||
6: 0
|
||||
7: 0
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Conflicts occurred about 3.5% of the time, and more than a simple conflict
|
||||
occurred about 0.1% of the time. We will refer to these as periods of
|
||||
"turbulence."
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
[M00]
|
||||
|
|
||||
[M01]
|
||||
/ \
|
||||
|
||||
[M02] [M02]
|
||||
|
||||
\ /
|
||||
[M03]
|
||||
|
|
||||
[M04]
|
||||
|
|
||||
```
|
||||
Above: when two servers transmit at the same time.
|
||||
Below: when three servers transmit at the same time:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
[M00]
|
||||
|
|
||||
[M01]
|
||||
/ | \
|
||||
|
||||
[M02] [M02] [M02]
|
||||
|
||||
\ | /
|
||||
[M03]
|
||||
|
|
||||
[M04]
|
||||
|
|
||||
```
|
||||
Below: when three servers transmit, and then a fourth server transmits
|
||||
having only received two out of the three transmissions in the previous round.
|
||||
```
|
||||
[M00]
|
||||
|
|
||||
[M01]
|
||||
/ | \
|
||||
|
||||
[M02] [M02] [M02]
|
||||
|
||||
\ \ /
|
||||
\ [M03]
|
||||
|
||||
\ /
|
||||
[M04]
|
||||
|
|
||||
[M05]
|
||||
|
|
||||
```
|
||||
The above scenario is a very rare occurrence but it is certainly seen in
|
||||
practice by slow servers participating in large and busy rooms.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
[A0] <-- [A1] <-- [A2] | A has seen B1 and includes a reference in A2
|
||||
^ |
|
||||
| <---<----<
|
||||
| |
|
||||
^------ [B1] <-- [B2] | B hasn't yet seen A1 or A2
|
||||
[0]
|
||||
[1] [B]
|
||||
|
||||
[T0] A release A0 :
|
||||
[T1] A release A1 : B acquire A0
|
||||
[T2] : B release B1
|
||||
[T3] A acquire B1 : B release B2
|
||||
[T4] A release A2 :
|
||||
```
|
||||
[2] [A]
|
||||
|
||||
Both actors will have their clock (depth) now set to 2 and will issue the
|
||||
next new message at clock cycle 3 referencing all messages from cycle 2 to
|
||||
merge the split in the illustration above which is happening.
|
||||
|
||||
[3] [9]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
[4] [8]
|
||||
|
||||
[5] [7]
|
||||
[6]
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
[A0] <-- [A1] <-- [A2] [A4] | A now sees B3, B2, and B1
|
||||
^ | | |
|
||||
| <---<----< ^--<--< <--<
|
||||
| | | |
|
||||
^------- [B1] <-- [B2] <-- [B3] | B now sees A2, A1, and A0
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
#### Coherence
|
||||
|
||||
Keen observers may have realized by now this system is not fully coherent.
|
||||
To be coherent, a system must leverage *entry consistency* and/or *release
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue