alkdev/alknet

0 Fork 0

Files

T

glm-5.2 7d9b1ebad9 docs(arch): endpoint types and entry points (ADR-086) — resolves OQ-62

Name the three-endpoint-type model (web/native/iroh) and the
entry-point vs. endpoint ALPN distinction. This untangles the
hub/endpoint/ALPN-config confusion that OQ-62 hinted at:

- A hub composes a SUBSET of three endpoint types (web, native, iroh),
  each with its own identity model, auth model, and transport(s). A
  full hub runs all three; a minimal hub runs iroh alone (no public
  IP required). The first real use case is web + native. Corrects the
  hub README's 'must support TCP+TLS and QUIC' framing.

- ALPNs split into entry points (accepted without identity — h2,
  http/1.1, future alknet/register) and endpoints (identity required
  before dispatch — alknet/channels, alknet/call, alknet/ssh). This
  resolves OQ-62: split ALPN lists by endpoint type (Option B), because
  each endpoint type serves a different client class with different
  negotiable ALPNs. The assembly-layer wiring pattern is now guessable.

- Foundational handlers are two categories, not one: channels
  data-channel ALPNs (tunnel, socks5, fs, sftp — gated by channels,
  not in any TLS ALPN list) vs. SSH (an endpoint ALPN that wraps
  channels inside it, RFC 7250 keys, legacy compat, comes later).

Files OQ-65 (WebSocket carrying channels — the browser story update)
filed as a one-way-door question, open. ADR-048 is not superseded;
OQ-65 may extend it. The web config advertises alknet/channels by
default so the hub is ready if OQ-65 resolves to 'WebSocket carries
channels.'

2026-07-15 05:19:11 +00:00

4.4 KiB

Raw Blame History

OQ-65: Should WebSocket Carry the Channels Protocol (Not Just the Call Protocol)?

Origin: docs/architecture/crates/http/websocket.md (ADR-048 specifies WebSocket carries the native call-protocol session — the EventEnvelope wire format over a WebSocket text/binary frame stream); docs/architecture/decisions/086-endpoint-types-and-entry-points.md §3 (the web config advertises alknet/channels for the WebSocket-carrying-channels path — a path ADR-048 does not specify).
Status: open
Door type: one-way (this supersedes or extends ADR-048's "WebSocket carries the native call-protocol session" decision. If WebSocket carries channels, a browser opens one WebSocket and gets the full channels substrate — channel/open, data-channel ALPNs, the relay path through the hub — instead of only the call-protocol session. This is a browser-wire-format one-way door: once browsers depend on the channels-over-WebSocket framing, changing it is a breaking change for every browser client.)
Priority: medium (the browser story works without this — ADR-048's call-protocol-only WebSocket is functional — but channels-over-WebSocket makes the browser a first-class channels participant, which simplifies the hub relay and the browser's access to data-channel ALPNs like TTY and tunnels. The question is whether the simplification is worth the one-way-door commitment now, or whether the call-protocol-only path suffices until a concrete browser-needs-a-data-channel use case arrives.)
Resolution: Not yet decided. The two options:

Option A — WebSocket carries call only (ADR-048 unchanged). The browser opens a WebSocket and gets a call-protocol session (EventEnvelope over WebSocket frames). Data-channel ALPNs (TTY, tunnels) are not accessible from the browser — the browser can invoke call operations but cannot open a alknet/tty channel. A browser needing a TTY would use a separate WebSocket per session, each carrying the TTY wire format directly (not via channel/open). Simpler; the browser is a call-protocol client, not a channels client.

Option B — WebSocket carries channels (extends/supersedes ADR-048). The browser opens a WebSocket and gets a channels connection — the 9-byte chunk format (ADR-071) over WebSocket binary frames, with channel 0 as alknet/call and data channels opened via channel/open. The browser is a full channels participant: it can open TTY channels, tunnels, etc. through the same WebSocket. The hub relay (ADR-079) works unchanged — the browser leg is a channels connection, same as a native leg. This is the "browser as channels client" path.

The trade-off: Option B commits to the channels-over-WebSocket framing as a browser wire format (one-way door), but makes the browser a first-class channels participant and simplifies the hub (one relay model, not two). Option A keeps the browser simpler but means the browser cannot use data-channel ALPNs over the same connection — each data-channel ALPN needs its own WebSocket and its own browser-side implementation.

This question is decision-ready when the first browser-needs-a- data-channel use case arrives (e.g., a browser-based terminal that needs alknet/tty over the hub). Until then, ADR-048's call-protocol-only path is the implemented browser path, and the web config advertises alknet/channels by default (per ADR-086 §3, so the hub is ready for Option B if chosen).

Note: this is distinct from the WebTransport path (deferred per ADR-044). WebTransport, when revived, would carry channels natively (a WT bidi stream = a channels connection). WebSocket-carrying- channels is the WebSocket equivalent — same substrate, different transport. If Option B is chosen, the WebSocket-channels framing and the WebTransport-channels framing share the channels wire format (ADR-071); only the transport differs.
Cross-references: ADR-048 (WebSocket carries the native call-protocol session — the current decision this OQ may supersede or extend), ADR-071 (channels wire format — the 9-byte chunk format that would ride over WebSocket binary frames), ADR-079 (hub relay — unchanged if the browser is a channels client), ADR-086 §3 (the web config advertises alknet/channels for this path), ADR-044 (WebTransport deferred; WebSocket is the v1 browser path)

4.4 KiB Raw Blame History

OQ-65: Should WebSocket Carry the Channels Protocol (Not Just the Call Protocol)?

4.4 KiB

Raw Blame History