Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ICS03/ICS26: Some inconsistencies #961

Closed
michwqy opened this issue Apr 13, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #962
Closed

ICS03/ICS26: Some inconsistencies #961

michwqy opened this issue Apr 13, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #962
Labels
bug tao Transport, authentication, & ordering layer.

Comments

@michwqy
Copy link
Contributor

michwqy commented Apr 13, 2023

If I understand this correctly, ConnOpenInit called by handleConnOpenInit in ICS26 should correspond to connOpenInit in ICS03.
In ICS03, connOpenInit takes counterpartyPrefix, clientIdentifier, counterpartyClientIdentifier, version as parameters.

function connOpenInit(
  counterpartyPrefix: CommitmentPrefix,
  clientIdentifier: Identifier,
  counterpartyClientIdentifier: Identifier,
  version: string,
  delayPeriodTime: uint64,
  delayPeriodBlocks: uint64) {
......
}

But in ICS26, connOpenInit takes identifier, desiredCounterpartyIdentifier, clientIdentifier, counterpartyClientIdentifier, version as parameters.

function handleConnOpenInit(datagram: ConnOpenInit) {
    handler.connOpenInit(
      datagram.identifier,
      datagram.desiredCounterpartyIdentifier,
      datagram.clientIdentifier,
      datagram.counterpartyClientIdentifier,
      datagram.version
    )
}

I don't quite understand how counterpartyPrefix and identifier, desiredCounterpartyIdentifier correspond to each other. In my understanding, there's no way to know connectionIdentifier and counterpartyconnectionIdentifier when connOpenInit is called.

@crodriguezvega
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @michwqy. Thanks for opening this issue. I think there's a mistake in ICS 26, so I have opened this PR to fix it.

@michwqy
Copy link
Contributor Author

michwqy commented Apr 14, 2023

Thanks @crodriguezvega.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug tao Transport, authentication, & ordering layer.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants