Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CAIP-122 example doesn't conform to spec #66

Closed
bumblefudge opened this issue May 19, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed

CAIP-122 example doesn't conform to spec #66

bumblefudge opened this issue May 19, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@bumblefudge
Copy link
Collaborator

As @silverpill pointed out in another thread, the example in CAIP-122 lists an address in Solana-native format, NOT in CAIP-10 format as specified above in the spec. Shouldn't it line 116
read
solana:5eykt4UsFv8P8NJdTREpY1vzqKqZKvdp:GwAF45zjfyGzUbd3i3hXxzGeuchzEZXwpRYHZM5912F1
instead of
GwAF45zjfyGzUbd3i3hXxzGeuchzEZXwpRYHZM5912F1
?

@haardikk21 @ukstv @zachferland someone who knows solana help me out here :D

@haardikk21
Copy link
Contributor

Good catch, definitely an oversight in the namespace spec.

The point of contention here is that SIWx was inspired by EIP-4361 - which does not require CAIP-10 in the address field, but CAIP-122 does.

Does this imply that the EIP-155 namespace spec for CAIP-122 will be divergent from EIP-4361? Or do we remove the CAIP-10 requirement from CAIP-122 entirely?

@silverpill
Copy link
Contributor

From the user's perspective, plain address is better, because it looks familiar and usually matches account ID used by wallet. CAIP-10 identifiers are harder to read and understand. I think the most sensible approach is to use plain address when displaying a message, and use CAIP-10 identifiers internally

@haardikk21
Copy link
Contributor

From the user's perspective, plain address is better, because it looks familiar and usually matches account ID used by wallet. CAIP-10 identifiers are harder to read and understand. I think the most sensible approach is to use plain address when displaying a message, and use CAIP-10 identifiers internally

I think the question about how closely we want to tie EIP-155 CAIP-122 spec with EIP-4361 remains. Regardless of whether the address is displayed in the message or not, is a CAIP-10 URN mandated in the data model?

It matters because when verifying signatures, or validating SIWE objects, or creating CACAO (CAIP-74) objects - the data model values matter because they're not re-parsed from the message representation - unless, of course, all of those specs then include notes to basically slice the URN into only it's address part

@bumblefudge
Copy link
Collaborator Author

closed by #236

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants