Conversation
Co-authored-by: Antonio <[email protected]>
ntn-x2
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't have much context on the origin of this PR, but overall it looks a good starting point.
One main grip I have, as I also had for CAIP-19 identifiers for the erc-based namespaces, is the possibility to link between identifiers that refer to the same resource. Specifically, I think that a tx referred to by a CAIP of this category and a tx referred to by a CAIP as in https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs/pull/220/files should semantically be considered the same resource. I don't see any resolution process defined in these CAIPs, meaning that they only deal (as far as I understand) with identifiers, and not with resolving any aliases between them.
But wouldn't that have to live in each namespace's profile of this CAIP, since there no common/universal assumptions that can be made even about the resolvability or uniqueness/non-uniqueness of these identifiers? |
|
Discussed today with member @ajunge from notabene.id - this CAIP is worth reviving, useful to a project they're working on, but there may be corner cases around ZCash or Monero or other privates not covered by 221 or 220-- may justify a third |
|
Why does this spec uses a different separator after |
Co-authored-by: Friedger <[email protected]>
Design questions still pending input:
..123deadbeef4.inputs[1]), or should the scheme just allow you to fetch the whole array and you need to dive into it after getting back the whole array?Would you all be open to a meeting to discuss, @TimDaub @titusz @ntn-x2 @sposth ?