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

641-incorporate-feedback-from-the-second-audit #662

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

carlostome
Copy link
Contributor

@carlostome carlostome commented Jan 30, 2025

Addresses #641

TODO (partial):

  • Combine sections 1 and 2
  • Rename security group's threshold parameter from Q5e to Q5 (Sec. 3, pp. 8-9)
  • Add security-relevant parameters to Fig 3 (Sec. 3, pp. 9) (related to Added some protocol parameters to the security group #660)
  • Explain UpdateT and how its used to check wellformedness (Sec. 3, pp. 8)
  • Add explanation of actionWellFormed for the case of TreasuryWdrl, and address the question: should the parameter x : RwdAddr ⇀ Coin be also wellformed? (Sec. 4, pp. 11-12)
  • Add description of refInputs (Sec. 5, pp 15)
  • Clarify the purpose of curTreasury and txdonation (Sec. 5, pp. 15)
  • Highlight txid (Sec. 5, pp. 15)
  • the type synonym Deposits is used in Sec. 6 (Figs. 12 and 13) but introduced in Sec. 8, Fig. 23
  • Clarify the motivation for allowing anyone to vote for any role even if the vote is invalid (during ratification).* (Sec. 7, pp. 21)
  • Put back definition of cwitness (Sec. 8)
  • Explain if making deposits explicit (Sec. 8.2) prevents issues if deposit amounts could be changed. (Sec.8 pp. 23)
  • Combine sections 8.1 to 8.3 as features of delegation in Conway. Emphasize 8.3 more. (Sec.8, pp. 23-24)
  • Add English text explanation for Figs. 30 and 31 (Sec. 9, pp 33-34)
  • Rename Enact-NewComm to Enact-UpdComm (Sec. 10, pp. 31)
  • In Sec. 11.1, clarify whether threshold x is meant as a fraction to the total stake of all votes, and how is the total stake counted for the purpose of counting if an action passes. (Sec. 11.1, pp. 39)
  • Should NewEpochState be part of Conway? if so add it to Fig. 41. (Sec. 12, pp. 46)
  • Add English text explanation of Fig. 42. (Sec. 12, pp. 46)
  • Add explanation why fees is not used when computing treasury in Fig. 43. (Sec. 12, pp. 48)

Checklist

  • Commit sequence broadly makes sense and commits have useful messages
  • Any semantic changes to the specifications are documented in CHANGELOG.md
  • Code is formatted according to CONTRIBUTING.md
  • Self-reviewed the diff

@carlostome carlostome linked an issue Jan 30, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@carlostome
Copy link
Contributor Author

  • the type synonym Deposits is used in Sec. 6 (Figs. 12 and 13) but introduced in Sec. 8, Fig. 23

module UTxO imports Certs but appears before in the PDF. Either we rearrange the order of imports or inline the definition.

WDYT? @WhatisRT @williamdemeo

@carlostome carlostome force-pushed the 641-incorporate-feedback-from-the-second-audit branch from 0707414 to e4000d4 Compare January 31, 2025 09:33
@williamdemeo williamdemeo linked an issue Jan 31, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
6 tasks
@williamdemeo
Copy link
Collaborator

williamdemeo commented Jan 31, 2025

  • the type synonym Deposits is used in Sec. 6 (Figs. 12 and 13) but introduced in Sec. 8, Fig. 23

module UTxO imports Certs but appears before in the PDF. Either we rearrange the order of imports or inline the definition.

WDYT? @WhatisRT @williamdemeo

I think the simplest thing to do would be to leave the ordering as it is and in the first place where Deposits is used we note that it is defined later, in Sec 8, Fig 23, with a reference/link to that section.

@williamdemeo williamdemeo mentioned this pull request Jan 31, 2025
6 tasks
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Incorporate feedback from the second audit Address feedback from Audit 6
2 participants