feat: added examples, added IANA requirement, fixed spelling issues#392
Conversation
|
Hey! This is awesome, thanks for iterating the old draft (and implicitly championing it). If you have some thoughts on use-cases that might help. For me, the one open question preventing me from taking this to IANA is which current and future CAIPs MUST or CAN a parser of these URIs know how to parse. All CAIPs that define an identifier? Only heirarchical CAIPs? Do they have to be "final" status? For example, dropping CAIP-21 and -22 makes perfect sense, as they've been superseded. CAIP-20 there are many arguments for dropping (no one, AFAIK, uses CAIP-20 in prod! the MetaMask Snaps team has even expressed interest in superceding it with some other way of canonicalizing native/gas tokens). But, devil's advocate, it's also an heirarchical identifier syntactically equivalent to CAIP-19, and the CAIP defining it is at the same status... so it gets a little squishy. I wouldn't say these questions are blocking this being accepted as a Draft and soliciting further feedback, but I DO think looking at use-cases and how this could get adopted in prod could be informed by these options (leaving it open-ended to future CAIPs, or never finalizing this CAIP and adding new forms of identifier one by one, or writing new CAIPs over time if additional URI shapes get added). |
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| # Ethereum Mainnet | ||
| caip:eip155:1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aren't these URNs, not URIs? URIs would be caip://eip155:1, non?
| caip:eip155:1/slip44:60 | ||
|
|
||
| # Bitcoin (native token via SLIP-44) | ||
| caip:bip122:000000000019d6689c085ae165831e93/slip44:0 |
| Care should be taken to add the `caip:` prefix when merging such lists or datasets into more general-purpose systems or URI-aware contexts. | ||
|
|
||
| When migrating to URI-based systems: | ||
| - Add the `caip:` prefix when exporting identifiers to external systems |
|
I responded to your messages, I've let the SEAL team know to comment on this as well! Let me know what you think. Also, you can see the Woot woot! |
@PatrickAlphaC did you maybe forget to push the new commit or review? i'm not seeing any responses or updates to the PR! |
|
@bumblefudge I responded to your comments. Let me know if you disagree with my rationale for the changes as such, or how I should update given my responses. |
2 participants
I don't think 20, 21, 22, are required for this CAIP to go through. But I could be wrong. Let me know what you all think. I have also applied to register caip with IANA with this PR.