The ILP communication without the 'non ILP'-clearing/settlement can be done stateless clearing and settlement (everything that is not ILP) can be done separate and maybe at more convenient intervals. The point being made is that keeping every connection alive (stateful) for its duration in a bi-directional websocket is apparently a more heavy load than compared to an architecture using stateless http sessions: stateless sessions can be scaled horizontally with existing (cloud) techniques. In a websocket connection, the connection is kept alive for processing multiple messages This repeated for many micro-payment packages. If received, then the payment is processed (clearing/settlement) and at his turn the client sends the 'fullfill' back to its own client (if any), etc. The client communicates the intended ILP package (the 'prepare') to connector and waits for the 'fullfill' answer. The connection between ILP client and ILP connector. Maybe interesting to read more on XRP payment channel setup and so called 'mini-accounts' here: As is the clearing/settlement from xrptipbot moneyd to your xrptipbot-ledger-account. The clearing/settlement for the payment from coil-browser to coil-ILP-connector is very different. I am imagining the process of accepting/validating one or more XRP payment channel packages to be called the 'clearing/netting' of that particular payment and when you want to make it definitive in the payment-channel or on-ledger, you 'settle'. you can withdraw to XRPledger if you want) Then a final ILP delivery (not XRP payment channel) is made to your account at xrptipbot-ledger. The next ILP hops in a coil payment are from Coil to Strata and from Strata to xrptipbot, his 'moneyd' node. The Coil connection from your browser to a coil ILP connector is not based on XRP payment channel, but on the credit you have at the connector - as you are a known client from Coil (with 5$ monthly subscription). ILP example flow: Coil browser -> Coil connector -> Strata connector -> xrptipbot 'moneyd' connector -> xrptipbot-ledger account (payment pointer) The accounts can also be implemented in other ways, e.g. an 'account'. If for example the relationship is based on an XRP payment channel, then the account can be pseudonymous, but at least it is known and kept for as long as the relationship lasts. All the clients have a relationship with the connector, i.e. We invite you to share news of this new group in social media and other channels.A Connector/ILSP can "clear or net" flows internally (just like an exchange can do for client trade which they can match) and then only send the non-netted payment flows on down the payment pathĪ connector serves its clients (which can be original ILP senders or other ILP connectors) by accepting their payment and forward the payment (route) to the next connector. Read more about how to get started in a new group and good practice for running a group. W3C’s hosting of this group does not imply endorsement of the activities. The following people supported its creation: Adrian Hope-Bailie, Ian Jacobs, Manu Sporny, Dave Longley, Michael Petychakis, Evan Schwartz. This group was originally proposed on by Adrian Hope-Bailie. Please note, however, that W3C Membership is not required to join a Community Group. In order to join the group, you will need a W3C account. The group’s vision is an open, universal payment scheme built on Web standards that allows any payer to pay any payee regardless of the payer’s choice of payment instrument or the payee’s account. The primary goal of the Interledger Payments Community Group is connecting the many payment networks (ledgers) around the world via the Web. The Interledger Payments Community Group has been launched: Look out for an email to the list looking for volunteers to facilitate and attend this breakout. This seemed like the only way to give this broad topic enough time on the agenda. You’ll note that we have carved out some time for a Smart Contracts breakout session and also booked another room for this so remote participants can dial in to that session if they wish. This obviously excludes remote attendees (unless you can arrange something with your breakout group) which is a great pity but couldn’t be avoided. Remember that we have the room for the whole day for anyone that wants to hang around and break into groups to pursue any new conversations following the morning session. We’re expecting 50+ in-person attendees for the workshop and a further 60+ will be joining remotely. It’s been a challenge to squeeze it all in both the huge number of attendees and the many topics that the community has asked to put on the agenda. Adrian Hope-Bailie | Posted on: February 17, 2016
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |