fix(transfer): change Authorization interface implementation in proto file

[Vvaradinov]

Description

Hi team, I noticed a suspicious error when testing out our Evmos local node with the recent backported changes in v6.2.

Error: unable to create codec descriptor: unable to get proto name for implementing type / for interface cosmos.v1beta1.Authorization

I've located a typo in the TransferAuthorization proto message using the wrong interface name for Authorization. After changing it the error goes away and the local node is started correctly.

closes: #XXXX

Commit Message / Changelog Entry

type: commit message

see the guidelines for commit messages. (view raw markdown for examples)

---

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md).
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Code follows the module structure standards and Go style guide.
• Wrote unit and integration tests.
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/).
• Added relevant godoc comments.
• Provide a commit message to be used for the changelog entry in the PR description for review.
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer.
• Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes.

[damiannolan]

Interesting that this is a requirement on sdk v0.46. We had an issue #2977 opened to correctly use the fully qualified proto type URL for these interfaces.

---

I decided to check: its because the v0.46 code does not register the interface as cosmos.authz.v1beta1.Authorization but cosmos.v1beta1.Authorization lol

[colin-axner]

Interesting that this is a requirement on sdk v0.46. We had an issue #2977 opened to correctly use the fully qualified proto type URL for these interfaces.

I decided to check: its because the v0.46 code does not register the interface as cosmos.authz.v1beta1.Authorization but cosmos.v1beta1.Authorization lol

Does cosmos.v1beta1.Authorization work? Or was #2977 only in reference to v0.47+?

[crodriguezvega]

Are we happy using Authorization or should we use cosmos.v1beta1.Authorization?

[damiannolan]

Are we happy using Authorization or should we use cosmos.v1beta1.Authorization?

I think either is fine. IIRC correctly the fully qualified name isn't a requirement until > sdk 0.47

[chatton]

LGTM