11/WAKU2-RELAY: General spec improvement

[staheri14]

There are a couple of things that might be good to be enhanced/fixed in the relay spec (some of the following items are already described in the libp2p specs, yet as waku relay is the simplified version of libp2p pubsub (and does not support all the features) it would be good to explain the relevant features).

• A more descriptive abstract (what is the objective of the waku relay protocol, etc.)
• To mention that WakuRelay is the implementation of libp2p PubSub (there is only one reference at the end of the specs but it is good to add something in the text as well)
• Some clarification about what is exactly gossiped (also some elaboration on the following sentence https://github.com/vacp2p/specs/blob/master/specs/waku/v2/waku-relay.md#rpc would be great )
• Also a workflow section would certainly enhance the clarity of the specs (e.g., does any Message get stored as part of this protocol, what happens to the incoming RPC messages, etc.)

Minor changes

• To change WakuSub -> WakuRelay
• To align the opening and closing curly braces in the protobuf section

[D4nte]

May I add that the Wire Specification could be improved as follow:

In this section, we specify two things how WakuRelay is using these messages.

It is not clear what are those two things.

The Protobuf section seems to describe how WakuRelay implement PubSub (and not specifically how PubSub works).
This create some contradictions as the fields from, key and signature are marked as MAY but in the Security Analysis it is stated that those field must not be built.

In the Protobuf section, I would suggest to either say those field MUST NOT be used or state that this section is just a reminder on how the PubSub protocol use the various fields.

Generally speaking, it is recommend to have one sentence per line in versioned documents. It makes history & versioning easier to track (and merge) and also make documents easier to read in raw format in IDE without soft wrap (the former is more important).

Edit: missing word

[staheri14]

state that this section is just a reminder on how the PubSub protocol use the various fields

I agree, it is better to say it as a reminder.

[oskarth]

Also see re control messages here #303