CPS-0008? | Domain Name Resolution

[HinsonSIDAN]

As the ecosystem emerges, more and more domain service projects entering Cardano. Currently noticeably there are 3 domain projects:

1. ADA Handle
2. adadomains
3. Cardano Name Service

Both adadomains and Cardano Name Service has chosen .ada as their domain suffix. When proceeding with wallet integration on address resolving, one common issue faced is the ambiguity in resolving approach, which could lead to potentially serious loss of fund in sending fund to undesired recipients.

The CIP is proposed accordingly to address the community feedback and suggestion.

---

(rendered proposal in branch)

[rphair]

I don't know if this CIP is specific enough to be usable by wallets (I'm not saying it's not). At first reading it seems to set a common-sense behavioural guideline & therefore any wallet (all those mentioned in Path to Active) would probably "agree with the approach" as you say there... but we'd never know for sure, and neither would they, unless your approach were detailed more exactly.

A more specific example of how exactly a wallet is expected to behave under these circumstances... something that's not being done already... would help show how necessary this CIP might be. (Note I don't work directly with these implementations & we have a couple other editors @Ryun1 @Crypto2099 who work extensively with wallets & their standards, and so they might be able to see this from what you have written.)

[rphair]

One way or another this item should be removed, since it's not a standard part of Path to Active:

• Based on the branch name I am assuming this is your homegrown solution: if so you can cite it as an implementation & it would address my original reservation (about not being specific enough) if you could talk in your Specification about how your own system works.
• If you think your service is beyond the scope of your CIP, you might put it in Rationale to talk about how & why the CIP is designed to accommodate implementations like your own.
• Regardless of how much detail you go into, it should instead be an item in your Implementation Plan since you appear to have a working model (or plan to have one).

[HinsonSIDAN]

So I just need to remove the line #### Participating Cardano Domain Service right? I think the content of the session is necessary to stay for community to take reference (and also its part of the implementation).

[rphair]

Just please make sure that whatever content remains fits into the section where it appears to be. If it's in either of the two Path to Active sections, it should fit that section as described here: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0001#path-to-active

[HinsonSIDAN]

@rphair
I don't know if this CIP is specific enough to be usable by wallets (I'm not saying it's not). At first reading it seems to set a general behavioural guideline which seems like common sense & therefore any wallet (all those mentioned in Path to Active) would probably "agree with the approach" as you say there... but we'd never know for sure, and neither would they, unless your approach were detailed more exactly.

A more specific example of how exactly a wallet is expected to behave under these circumstances... something that's not being done already... would help show how necessary this CIP might be. (Note I don't work directly with these implementations & we have a couple other editors @Ryun1 @Crypto2099 who work extensively with wallets & their standards, and so they might be able to see this from what you have written.)

Just added some specific examples on the expected behaviour. Does it address your concern, or is it better for me to try to pull wallets include discussion here as well?

[Ryun1]

I agree with @rphair, such wallet behaviours are not normally under the remit of CIPs. I believe this proposal to be more best practices rather than a technical problem and a solution. But I would be keen to hear from Wallet providers on this, perhaps this is something that they would be interested in pursuing.

[rphair]

OK then @SIDANWhatever @Ryun1 - we can talk about both issues (CIP proper scope & how to get wallet devs into the discussion) on Tuesday; I've added it to the agenda: https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/75

[perturbing]

I'm on board with the idea of standardizing "DNS" tokens, much like what the Ada Handle team aimed for in this old PR. That one got closed since it was too specific to Ada Handle's "DNS" design, unlike this proposal which seems more general. I see value here but fitting it into the bigger picture needs some more thought. Looking forward to seeing how this evolves and blends with other initiatives in the ecosystem.

[HinsonSIDAN]

As per discussion in bi-weekly call, amended the proposal with format of CPS. Appreciate any suggestion on how could I move contents into suitable session (especially here I have a proposed solution or standard to this particular CPS).

[rphair]

thanks @SIDANWhatever - this definitely resolves the difficulty of the criteria "3 of wallets listed below agree with the approach" since that should occur in discussion of the CPS and any other CIPs submitted for it.

re: #605 (comment) - All the content about your own reference implementation can be posted into a separate CIP document with a separate pull request... since these 2 documents will be considered & reviewed independently.

[HinsonSIDAN]

@rphair Redrafting it into a CPS, I would create another PR for my suggested solution as CIP particularly to the address resolving (since mis-alignment on it might cause loss of fund, it comes with a higher priority).

One thing I would like to hear editors' advice is that, I amended this CPS to address a higher level problem - information resolving as a whole but not address resolving. In this sense, I am not sure which category should I put on this CPS.

I have invited collaboration on the forked repo. Please feel free to edit and comment. Thanks!

[rphair]

@SIDANWhatever yes a CIP for the specific (perhaps more urgent) solution sounds like it would be welcome.

[rphair]

Putting this on next CIP meeting agenda for Review since this proposal has changed shape a lot since it was presented in Triage the last time: https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/76

[SamDelaney]

Another relevant use case: Anastasia Labs is working on "Smart Beacons" as of Fund 10. https://www.lidonation.com/en/proposals/anastasia-labs-smart-beacons-router-nfts-f10.

[rphair]

Promoted to CPS candidate at today's meeting; thanks @SIDANWhatever for your attendance & progressive work... please change this directory name to CPS-0008 and update the "rendered proposal" link at the top 🤩

@colll78 in light of #605 (comment) if you are behind https://github.com/Anastasia-Labs/smart-handles then please grace us this PR with a review and/or feedback whenever you see fit 🤓

[rphair]

@HinsonSIDAN I can't see that this problem (as stated in your CPS) has gone away, and in fact I've referred to your exposition of the problem a few times when discussing the new work on Cardano Payment URLs which I believe will require some means of settling domain name conflicts (cc @Crypto2099).

So although it's been somewhat "abandoned" (currently we're finding many such proposals in the CIP repo PR queue) I'm going to vote that this should be merged and therefore tag Last Check which which will trigger its appearance on a CIP meeting soon: maybe the one tomorrow.

As far as I'm concerned this passed review a long time ago (and somehow slipped through cracks in editors' attention) & no further action is required on your part, but if there is anything you need to add please update it ASAP.

[Ryun1]

This one slipped through the cracks
Happy to see it merged