Why does gossipsub::Message have no signature field, but RawMessage does?

[Velnbur]

I'm trying to implement "storage" for messages with original signatures presented, but the only option I can find is to implement my own DataTransform by extending the data field of Message by signature's bytes, which is not great at least.

[dariusc93]

The signature itself would likely be more for internal verification vs external. Additionally, I dont believe there would be any use cases to expose it in Message. Could you explain your use case for wanting to store the messages with the original signatures? Is it possible have your use-case use its own signature as apart of the message data, in other words have the message you are sending be signed prior to it being published?

[Velnbur]

It is, of course, possible to use our own signatures, but it would be much more convenient to avoid reinventing the wheel and instead use the functionality already implemented in libp2p.

The idea is that peers distribute and gather data from one another to mutually advance their states. If, after a certain timeout, a peer fails to receive specific data needed to advance its state, it requests the missing data from its neighbors using request-response. To prove the validity of the data, it must be signed by the original sender.

For this reason, each peer also stores previous messages along with their original signatures.

[esotericbyte]

I believe you define a Transform form RawMessage to GossipsubMessage when you define your network behavior when using GossipSub.
I think the default for Message id for GossipsubMessage is the Id and message increment from RawMessage concatenated.
I am going to create another topic that is related by might be helpful. I don't want to hijack your thread and my level of lib2p2 experience is that this kind of application architecture question should be validated by a more senior dev.