[CAIP-275] - chain-specific resolution corner-case

[bumblefudge]

A helpful reviewer left a pretty significant comment (that probably should've been an issue) on the PR merging CAIP-275, which maybe no one saw because the PR was merged before the comment:
#275 (comment)

Is this a legitimate concern? Would it make more sense to consider an "implicit chainId" (1, or 0) be injected any time no chainId is present? I think the semantics of chainId 0 are starting to "be a thing", between our recent namespace PR making it a thing in CAIP-2 systems, and EIP-7702 specifying 0 as the chainId for offchain cases... although maybe I misunderstand OP and they are actually suggesting chainId 1 be the default when no other id is set?

I can't assign either of you the issue but tagging @davidlsneider and @FedericoAmura to address with a normative or purely editorial PR (or just dismiss with an explanation at least, if no editorial is worth making in the CAIP itself?)

[FedericoAmura]

Hi Bumblefudge!
It is a valid concern, which we have been rethinking this last days as we advanced with development and communication with partners
We are making an update on the CAIP with some changes to make this more clear, including:

• removing the name to address resolution call. This call was the biggest culprit of confusion and is going to be replaced with the chain and address field in the authenticator. This also makes the necessary information totally self contained and easier to use, improving both DX and UX
• explaining how the chain field must be treated. In this case, it would be as you say, understanding no value as 0, offline or EOA. And whenever that value is defined (CAIP-2 format) it can be said it is a smart wallet on that specific chain

We will open a PR shortly