Replace ProvideBitswap with new API based on IPIP-378

[lidel]

@masih filling this as a placeholder, feel free to rephrase this to better reflect what needs to happen.

This project depends on undocumented and deprecated ProvideBitswap from boxo.

IPFS ecosystem is shifting towards nodes having both HTTP and Bitswap as retrieval protocols, and we would like to avoid separate announcement for each protocol.

IPIP-378 aims to introduce a specification for how provider PUTs are expected to work in cases when CID is provided over more than just bitswap

Once we have that, projects like this one should stop using ProvideBitswap and switch to the new API based on IPIP-378.

Ref.

• Deprecation plan for ProvideBitswap: feat(routing/http)!: delegated peer routing server and client, IPIP 417 ipfs/boxo#422 (comment)
• IPIP for PUTs on /routing/v1: IPIP-378: Delegated Routing HTTP POST API ipfs/specs#378

[lidel]

Hi, checking in again.

• IPFS Stewards would like to remove undocumented and buggy bitswap provides API from Boxo/Kubo.
  • Given uncertain priorities and resourcing, we are not investing time in fixes related to it (like routing/http: add more type and WithDynamicProviderInfo ipfs/boxo#443)
  • Ideally, we would like to cleanup and remove this, shifting focus towards multi-stakeholder spec-first approach from IPIP-378

@masih @willscott Do you have an alternative way of serving your users now, since we've talked about this last time? Is it safe to remove ProvideBitswap now, or should we avoid making waves and keep code in Kubo as-is until IPIP-378 is ready as replacement?

Asking because https://github.com/ipni/index-provider/#configuring-kubo-to-advertise-content-onto-ipni-experimental still points your users towards the ProvideBitswap (unsupported API).

[willscott]

cc @ischasny

[ischasny]

Hi @lidel - is there an alternative API that we can switch over if ProvideBitswap is removed?

[lidel]

@ischasny we want to define one in IPIP-378 and implement that in Kubo and Boxo, but it had no engagement for a while (see question ipfs/specs#378 (comment)).

(Ok if you say "keep old thing for now", just planning Q4 and wondering if we could do cleanup now, before IPIP, or after, in 2024)

[ischasny]

@lidel would be great if you keep it for now, until an alternative is available. Thank you!