-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 237
IPIP 0499: CID Profiles #499
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 2 commits
8842176
4ba68f0
6cc64cb
d8b8389
600d1fc
595588c
41f9b86
229988f
f37e610
7a12f0a
ff69e56
09baf68
cffade8
0402c84
ec07e30
f454912
9c621ba
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ | ||
--- | ||
# IPIP number should match its pull request number. After you open a PR, | ||
# please update title and update the filename to `ipip0000`. | ||
title: "IPIP-0499: CID Profiles" | ||
date: 2025-04-03 | ||
ipip: proposal | ||
editors: | ||
- name: Michelle Lee | ||
relatedIssues: | ||
- n/a | ||
order: 0000 | ||
tags: ['ipips'] | ||
--- | ||
|
||
## Summary | ||
|
||
<!--One paragraph explanation of the IPIP.--> | ||
This proposal introduces profiles for IPFS CIDs. Profiles explicitly define CID version, hash algorithm, chunk size, DAG width, layout, and other parameters. | ||
|
||
## Motivation | ||
|
||
Currently, CIDs can be generated with a variety of settings and optimizations for chunking, DAG width, and more. This means the same file can yield multiple, different CIDs depending on which tools and settings are used, and it is not possible to reliably reproduce or verify the CID. Profiles offer With profiles, following the same profile will produce identical CIDs for identical content, whic makes verification regardless of implementation. | ||
|
||
## Detailed design | ||
|
||
We introduce a profile naming system, | ||
|
||
Each profile must specify the following characteristics: | ||
|
||
1. CID version (CIDv0 or CIDv1) | ||
2. Hash algorithm | ||
3. Chunk size | ||
4. DAG width | ||
5. DAG layout | ||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
6. Required | ||
2color marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
Additional profiles can be added at a future date. Profile names may be chosen from the names of any botanical tree with compound leaves. | ||
|
||
| | Helia default | Kubo default | Storacha default | "test-cid-v1" profile | DASL | | ||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|-------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------|-----------------------|---------------| | ||
| CID version | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | | ||
| Hash Algo | sha-256 | sha-256 | sha-256 | sha-256 | sha-256 | | ||
| Chunk size | 1MiB | 256KiB | 1MiB | 1MiB | not specified | | ||
| DAG width | 1024 | 174 (but it's complicated*) | 1024 | 174 | not specified | | ||
| DAG layout | balanced | balanced | balanced | balanced | not specified | | ||
|
||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. couple of other things to consider?
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I've added this as a parameter. According to the latest version of https://github.com/ipfs/specs/pull/331/files, the calculation is done as follows:
If calculated according to this, does it make accurate? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. sounds about right, I remember there being some nuance in exactly what's included in the size calculation, making it not super stable if you get it slightly wrong (as we did for some variants in go-unixfsnode for a while) |
||
|
||
This would be specified as a table in (forthcoming UnixFS spec). | ||
|
||
|
||
|
||
## Design rationale | ||
|
||
The profile names are chosen to be easy to pronounce. | ||
|
||
Here is a summary table of current defaults, thanks to input & clarifications from @2color @achingbrain @lidel: | ||
|
||
| | Helia default | Kubo default | Storacha default | "test-cid-v1" profile | DASL | | ||
|-------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------|-----------------------|---------------| | ||
| CID version | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | | ||
| Hash Algo | sha-256 | sha-256 | sha-256 | sha-256 | sha-256 | | ||
| Chunk size | 1MiB | 256KiB | 1MiB | 1MiB | not specified | | ||
| DAG width | 1024 | 174 (but it's complicated*) | 1024 | 174 | not specified | | ||
| DAG layout | balanced | balanced | balanced | balanced | not specified | | ||
|
||
* Kubo has 2 different default DAG widths: | ||
* For HAMT-sharded directories, the `DefaultShardWidth` [here](https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/blob/f1d5312e3be45d151bb9c8f11c9283820687bea3/ipld/unixfs/io/directory.go#L30) is 256. | ||
* For files, `DefaultLinksPerBlock` [here](https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/blob/v0.29.0/ipld/unixfs/importer/helpers/helpers.go#L30) is ~174 | ||
|
||
See related discussion at https://discuss.ipfs.tech/t/should-we-profile-cids/18507/ | ||
|
||
### User benefit | ||
|
||
Reliable, deterministic CIDs allow independent verification of content across tools and ipmlementations. | ||
2color marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
### Compatibility | ||
|
||
Implementations will need to (1) make CID generation settings configurable and (2) support user setting of profiles. | ||
|
||
Kubo currently has no CLI / RPC / Config option to control DAG width in Kubo. https://github.com/ipfs/kubo/issues/10751 is the starting point to add that ability. | ||
|
||
### Security | ||
|
||
TODO | ||
|
||
### Alternatives | ||
|
||
Another approach could be to name profiles based on the key UnixFS/CID parameters, e.g. v1-sha256-balanced-1mib-1024w-raw. This is longer and more convoluted. | ||
|
||
## Test fixtures | ||
|
||
TODO | ||
|
||
List relevant CIDs. Describe how implementations can use them to determine | ||
specification compliance. This section can be skipped if IPIP does not deal | ||
with the way IPFS handles content-addressed data, or the modified specification | ||
file already includes this information. | ||
|
||
### Copyright | ||
|
||
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.