Create 2017-08-31--ipld-deep-dives.md (ipfs#497)

* Create 2017-08-31--ipld-deep-dives.md

* 2017-08-31 IPLD Deep Dive: Fill out my (stebalien) parts.

meeting-notes/2017-08-31--ipld-deep-dives.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# IPLD Deep Dives August 31
+
+**Moderator:** @diasdavid
+
+**Notetaker:** @jon-choi
+
+**Attendees** 
+* @stebalien
+* @Kubuxu
+* @Magik6k
+* @diasdavid
+* @jon-choi
+
+
+## Agenda
+
+<!-- Ensure notetaker is present before you begin -->
+- Start recording
+- Call for additional agenda items (moderator)
+- IPLD Interface Spec (@stebalien)
+- Sharded Maps on IPLD, HAMT, CHAMT (@Kubuxu)
+- IPLD Selectors/Transforms + UnixFS binary blobs (@stebalien)
+
+<!-- After each call, it is the responsibility of the notetaker to save the last
+version of the notes in a file in ipfs/pm/meeting-notes, by opening a branch and
+submitting a PR. -->
+
+## Notes
+
+* IPLD Interface Spec
+  * intro: go-ipld interface considerations @stebalien
+    * block: cid & raw data
+    * nodes are blocks (go-ipld)
+      * would like to add a method for unmarshal into a struct
+    * `dagNode`
+      * don't have consistent format?
+        * No, they don't.
+      * for statically typed languages such as go, we'll want a consistent interface at this level.
+      * also, go doesn't have json "objects" so the "best" api for go will probably look different than the "best" api for javascript.
+  * discussion:
+    * context compared to js-ipld @diasdavid
+      * requirements stemmed from web dev usability for ipfs
+      * serialize / deserialize 
+    * not convinced this is the best way forward (@diasdavid accurate?)
+    * javascript does not have interfaces, which is why we have separate interface tests
+      * that said, having consistent naming convention helps 
+    * in go, there are 2-3 levels:
+      * block level: data + CID, doesn't understand ipld
+      * node level: serialized but traversable data + CID, understands IPLD, immutable.
+      * object level: fully deserialized, no CID, mutable (doesn't exist in a generic form at the moment but this level will allow us to easily edit DAGs).
+    * current implementation let's you generate the cid at will
+    * @diasdavid unclear if this suggestion has to change the interface given what happens in js-ipld already. this might get very complex very quickly and make it error prone (?)
+    * @kubuxu – this suggestion feels similar to the go-ipfs MFS (files API) mechanism
+      * @stebalien: it was inspired by it
+    * when should the trees be serialized? before and after cid is paired?
+    * @diasdavid: happy to work through specific examples with @stebalien to assess this proposal
+    * @stebalien: can take go-ipld on this direction and iterate each implementation on each other.
+      * @diasdavid: doesn't have to work the same way, but it should have the same principles
+* Sharded Maps on IPLD, HAMT, CHAMT
+  * sharded maps / arrays are very important
+    * esp given large maps and arrays
+    * current plan: another layer on top of ipld resolver?
+      * @diasdavid: yes, a lot of the 
+    * this is where the ideas of transforms come in @stebalien
+      * we'd want this for eth as well (trie)
+    * @kubuxu: so implementation of this layer will take a while since the two layers below are still finalized
+    * @diasdavid: we haven't had the bandwidth to, but we'd love someone to take a deeper dive into this.
+      * dependencies: resolve layer maybe ~70% set
+  * @kubuxu: should we test as an external library
+    * @diasdavid: absolutely. that'd be great
+  * reserved keys: we should have these, but not clear how many and what they look like
+    * what happens in which layers? (please enumerate @stebalien, @kubuxu, @diasdavid)
+  * self-describing
+* IPLD Selectors/Transforms + UnixFS binary blobs
+  * wasm considerations
+  * @diasdavid & @stebalien
+  * we need to loop in @nicola and @wanderer
+* TODO
+  * PR for interface merged
+  	* decide on repo organization
+
+