docs(trustless): clarify streaming gateway behavior & response headers#517
Merged
docs(trustless): clarify streaming gateway behavior & response headers#517
Conversation
Member
rvagg
commented
Oct 11, 2025
rvagg
commented
- Add Accept vs format parameter precedence
- Clarify 404 vs streaming behavior for missing blocks
- Document Cache-Control: only-if-cached (412 response)
- Add X-Ipfs-Roots guidance for streaming gateways
- Document Etag implementation variance
- Add Content-Disposition filename guidance (.car vs .bin)
- Improve wording (CAR stream vs CAR file)
- Add Accept vs format parameter precedence - Clarify 404 vs streaming behavior for missing blocks - Document Cache-Control: only-if-cached (412 response) - Add X-Ipfs-Roots guidance for streaming gateways - Document Etag implementation variance - Add Content-Disposition filename guidance (.car vs .bin) - Improve wording (CAR stream vs CAR file)
🚀 Build Preview on IPFS ready
|
Member
Author
|
For some background: the lens I'm using here is as someone who doesn't care much about the expansive definitions of "gateway" but only narrowly in the trustless portion of this, and only the pure CAR + raw block version as per the trustless spec. But because trustless says that it builds on the path spec, I have to care about the path spec but it contains a lot of extraneous information. So I've tried to bring local clarity into the trustless spec to highlight those things in path that are relevant. Plus, some additional clarifications I thought were warranted now I'm doing another pass on this and cleaning up frisbii to match. |
- move Cache-Control: only-if-cached to request headers section - remove X-Ipfs-Path and X-Ipfs-Roots response headers section - update editor affiliations and reorganize contributors - update dates to 2025-10-13
specify that X-Ipfs-Path and X-Ipfs-Roots headers should be returned with deserialized responses, and may be omitted with trustless response types (raw blocks and CAR)
Member
Author
|
cool, lgtm |
lidel
approved these changes
Oct 18, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.