Skip to content
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

Align gossip validation for aggregates with single attestations #3552

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 16, 2024

Conversation

etan-status
Copy link
Contributor

A couple gossip validation rules are only specced out for single un-aggregated attestations, but are also checked by implementations for aggregates. This adds a copy of the missing gossip validation rules to the aggregated attestation docs.

A couple gossip validation rules are only specced out for single
un-aggregated attestations, but are also checked by implementations
for aggregates. This adds a copy of the missing gossip validation rules
to the aggregated attestation docs.
- _[IGNORE]_ `aggregate.data.slot` is within the last `ATTESTATION_PROPAGATION_SLOT_RANGE` slots (with a `MAXIMUM_GOSSIP_CLOCK_DISPARITY` allowance) --
i.e. `aggregate.data.slot + ATTESTATION_PROPAGATION_SLOT_RANGE >= current_slot >= aggregate.data.slot`
(a client MAY queue future aggregates for processing at the appropriate slot).
- _[REJECT]_ The aggregate attestation's epoch matches its target -- i.e. `aggregate.data.target.epoch ==
compute_epoch_at_slot(aggregate.data.slot)`
- _[REJECT]_ The number of aggregation bits matches the committee size -- i.e.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not the number of 1 bits, but the total number of bits regardless of value. Same condition as for the single attestations.

@ppopth
Copy link
Member

ppopth commented Nov 22, 2023

Looks good to me. Thanks.

Copy link
Contributor

@hwwhww hwwhww left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

Copy link
Contributor

@djrtwo djrtwo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants