AEX-2: Drop identifiers

[davidyuk]

Some transports like postMessage interface provide own identification mechanisms. That in the case of postMessage interface (origin field) even more secure that proposed solution, because of the origin field provided by a browser so can't be faked. This makes reasonable to make identifiers proposed by AEX-2 optional.

[shekhar-shubhendu]

Using different identifiers for different transport layer will break the uniformity and will be difficult to manage.

[davidyuk]

It means that AEX-2 trying to handle too much, let's make it simpler. We shouldn't ignore features with greater security because of our universal standards. Maybe we can extract identification into a separate standard and apply when it is necessary?

[shekhar-shubhendu]

AEX-2 is adding an identifier but you can always use the features provided by the postMessage API(or any transport layer) alongside it. I don't see how adding the identifier will break it.

[davidyuk]

#40 (comment) probably proves that identifiers are not needed at all or they should be reimplemented

[davidyuk]

Defining the transport layer incl. connection set up between wallet and aepp is currently out of scope and will not be added to the AEX. #40 (comment)

I was thinking that identifiers are made for one of the cases from #40. If it is "out of scope", then I can't find any reasoning for identification mechanics and proposing to drop it.

[davidyuk]

Solved in #57