Bumblefudge

[CAIP-19] Assets versus Actors or Entities?

1

I got a DM from someone deciding whether to use CAIP-19 in a project, who thought the SYNTAX of CAIP-19 worked fine, but didn't understand why it was semantically constrained...

I was wondering if anyone has seen work similar to this: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4804 On other L1s, which might be useful inputs to a CAIP generalizing EIP-4804 for cross-chain purposes (or web3://-wide...

User feedback: No way to address a NON-ASSET deployed smart contract in a namespaced way

8

CAIP-19 only works for assets controlled/registered at a smart contract; non-asset smart contracts are not addressable by it. It feels like `asset_type` should not be generalized to `contract_type`, particularly since...

In a namespaces PR, @silverpill [made a good point](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/namespaces/pull/86#issuecomment-1737208366) that CAIP URIs aren't really URIs until `caip` is registered as a top-level domain... I like the format proposed in that...

new CAIP - Transaction Object Addressing

3

Design questions still pending input: - Note: [Titusz' proposal](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs/issues/209#issuecomment-1416002818) was for addressing transactions within blocks, by slot #; here, instead, I was thinking specifically of transactions that can be queried...

To allow more complex issuance. Also rearranges methods to be more readable (and move all optional methods to the end)

[CAIP-27] Corner-cases around accounts assumptions

1

Some methods implicitly or explicitly assume exactly one account. If multiple accounts have been authorized by CAIP-25, but none "selected"/set-as-default/etc, calling said methods via CAIP-27 might produce unexpected or, worse,...

[CAIP-171] - drop cryptographic/entropic UUID requirement?

1

Discussing with RPC Chair today, there was some discussion about different future in-browser architectures and whether they would have any internal need for sessionIds, or if session management will happen...