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

Call for Input: Allow Links to CAIP #320

Closed
SamWilsn opened this issue Feb 21, 2024 · 6 comments
Closed

Call for Input: Allow Links to CAIP #320

SamWilsn opened this issue Feb 21, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Collaborator

Call for Input

Decision

Do we merge ethereum/EIPs#8247 ?

If Affirmed

Links to CAIP proposals are allowed.

If Rejected No change.
Method Rough Consensus
Deadline March 21th, 2024

Background

See ethereum/ERCs#99

@g11tech
Copy link

g11tech commented Feb 22, 2024

i am of the opinion that we allow as much links as possible to the sources which we deem to be safe to refer (immutability and reputation wise)

@bumblefudge
Copy link

bumblefudge commented Feb 22, 2024

^ I would be glad to open a PR that consolidates the allowlist into a simple two-column table with domains (reputation) and regexs (CI-able immutability-check), since each source has a different URL/URN scheme for its immutable docs (and non-immutable docs we presumably don't want to allow links to).

In the case of CAIPs, it might be easier to do allow rendered CAIPs (domain chainagnostic.org) and check a <meta> tag I can rejigger jekyll to include in each rendered page containing that document's status from the jekyll frontmatter? or maybe i can create a separate subdomain or path just for docs with final status so that a simpler regex can be created, like https://chainagnostic.org/CAIPs/final/caip-25?

This was referenced Mar 13, 2024
@SamWilsn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SamWilsn commented Apr 3, 2024

I wanted to avoid commenting on this one since I wrote EIP-5757, but since no one has discussed whether CAIPs meet the requirements there, I guess I probably should:

Versioned: Yes; git hashes.
Availability: Questionable; only existed since August of 2019.
No Cost: Yes; repository is CC0-1.0.


My two concerns are:

  • CAIPs haven't been around that long. 5757 mentions ten years as a reasonable benchmark.
  • Can't we just copy the CAIP into the assets directory and link to it from there? CC0 would allow that.

Since we have a reasonable workaround (copying to assets), and the only availability benchmark we have hasn't been met, I am going to oppose this CFI.

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SamWilsn commented Apr 10, 2024

There's also the question of legitimacy, which I neglected to bring up earlier. While it isn't an official requirement, do we want to recognize CAIPs as a "legitimate" standards body? If we do, we should link to them. If not, put them in assets/.

@xinbenlv
Copy link

In strong favor to allow link to CAIP

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The general consensus is to affirm this CFI.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants