Aleo: Add CAIP-2 and CAIP-10 specs

[jonandgon]

This is the start of adding CAIP specs for the Aleo Network. Aleo is a privacy-focused L1 that uses zero-knowledge proofs.

[JonathanConn]

Hello 👋
My name is Jon, I am with WalletConnect
We need this PR merged to support their chain @bumblefudge

cc @jonandgon

[jonandgon]

@bumblefudge @JonathanConn what work needs to be done to get this merged? I can spend some time improving the PR, but I would like some feedback if you guys have any.

Thanks!

[bumblefudge]

hey @jonandgon there are minor/formatting change requests above as well as content questions I'd love answered (may not need changes depending on the answers, or i may be able to add whatever's missing otherwise), nothing blocking other than that

[jonandgon]

Hey @bumblefudge I'm not seeing the change requests / questions, can you send a link to it? Or I may not have view access to it.

thank you!!

[bumblefudge]

#90 ? i am guessing you're seeing these messages via email instead of on github dot com?

[jonandgon]

yeah, I'm getting email notifications - but I respond directly on github.com.

If you could just resend the comments/questions somehow (screenshots work) I can get the fixes in

[bumblefudge]

Mmmm, that's more semantics than syntax. What are valid chain IDs? Are they case-sensitive? Canonically lowercase? Max length? etc etc. A reg-exp never hurts, if it's already specified somewhere.

[bumblefudge]

If you could just resend the comments/questions somehow (screenshots work) I can get the fixes in

Terribly sorry, I didn't realize my suggestions were all "pending" because I hadn't "submitted" my review! Mea culpa

[jonandgon]

@bumblefudge - just addressed all your comments, let me know if there's anything else!

[bumblefudge]

Hey @jonandgon sorry for the back-and-forth. I'm still a little baffled on the chain identifiers-- how do you know you're on testnet3 and not some private network? On most blockchain networks, there is an RPC command to ask the node what network/consensus-community/chainID it's on-- on L1s where chains are identified by genesis hash, the node would return that for the its network, and on L1s where network identifiers are hardcoded into the protocol, a human-readable name or integer/ASCII-character usually comes back. Are testnet3 and mainnet values encoded anywhere, or is network switching not codified yet? Looking at the docs it seems like network identifiers are hardcoded into the RESTful endpoint paths, which would imply short URL-friendly human-readable slugs are, by design, the primary identifier rather than machine-readable ones or hashes. But are there constraints on possible future network identifiers?

The regexp here is a little unnecessary because if you're just specifying the two valid values, this spec will be out of date when a new public network is launched. More importantly, it does not provide any guidance for validating a private network, if those can be spun up-- usually we ask for a regexp of all possible valid network identifiers, not an ENUM expressed as a regex :D

[jonandgon]

ok so I got an update from the Aleo team regarding this.

in addition to network identifiers hardcoded into the REST endpoint, the network ID is output from the block data itself. For example, if you call https://api.explorer.aleo.org/v1/testnet3/latest/block, you will see that the network is 3 for testnet3. Mainnet will have a network ID of 0 The network is a u16 number.

Unfortunately, since there is no official support for local devnets, it's hard to say what the network ID for that would be, but since there is 65535 possible ids, they could easily add one.

I will update the spec to reflect this new info. Thanks for the patience!

[jonandgon]

annnnddd @bumblefudge the specs have been updated. thank you for the help, and please lmk what else needs to be done!

[bumblefudge]

Cool, I just added a "contents may shift after mainnet launch" disclaimer to the CAIP-2 profile and it's GTG as far as i'm concerned. one more thumbs up from another CASA reviewer and it's shipped

[jonandgon]

@bumblefudge any update from the 2nd reviewer? thanks

[obstropolos]

All looks good to me - looking forward to the mainnet launch noted in the CAIP!