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

Address metadata registry #926

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 29, 2018
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
73 changes: 73 additions & 0 deletions EIPS/EIP-X-metadata-nickjohnson.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
## Preamble

EIP: <to be assigned>
Title: Address metadata registry
Author: Nick Johnson <nick@ethereum.org>
Type: Standard track
Category: ERC
Status: Draft
Created: 2018-03-12
Dependencies: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-165.md

## Abstract
This EIP specifies a registry for address metadata, permitting both contracts and external accounts to supply metadata about themselves to onchain and offchain callers. This permits use-cases such as generalised authorisations, providing token acceptance settings, and claims registries.

## Motivation
An increasing set of use cases require storage of metadata associated with an address; see for instance EIP 777 and EIP 780, and the ENS reverse registry in EIP 181. Presently each use-case defines its own specialised registry. To prevent a proliferation of special-purpose registry contracts, we instead propose a single standardised registry using an extendable architecture that allows future standards to implement their own metadata standards.

## Specification
The metadata registry has the following interface:
```
interface AddressMetadataRegistry {
function provider(address target) view returns(address);
function setProvider(address _provider);
}
```

`setProvider` specifies the metadata registry to be associated with the caller's address, while `provider` returns the address of the metadata registry for the supplied address.

The metadata registry will be compiled with an agreed-upon version of Solidity and deployed using the trustless deployment mechanism to a fixed address that can be replicated across all chains.

## Provider specification

Providers may implement any subset of the metadata record types specified here. Where a record types specification requires a provider to provide multiple functions, the provider MUST implement either all or none of them. Providers MUST throw if called with an unsupported function ID.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For clarity, recommend including the Solidity code for this:

function () { revert; }

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Solidity implements this automatically now.


Providers have one mandatory function:

```
function supportsInterface(bytes4 interfaceID) constant returns (bool)
```

The `supportsInterface` function is documented in [EIP 165](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-165.md), and returns true if the provider implements the interface specified by the provided 4 byte identifier. An interface identifier consists of the XOR of the function signature hashes of the functions provided by that interface; in the degenerate case of single-function interfaces, it is simply equal to the signature hash of that function. If a provider returns `true` for `supportsInterface()`, it must implement the functions specified in that interface.

`supportsInterface` must always return true for `0x01ffc9a7`, which is the interface ID of `supportsInterface` itself.

The first argument to all provider functions MUST be the address being queried; this facilitates the creation of multi-user provider contracts.

Currently standardised provider interfaces are specified in the table below.

| Interface name | Interface hash | Specification |
| --- | --- | --- |

EIPs may define new interfaces to be added to this registry.

## Rationale
There are two obvious approaches for a generic metadata registry: the indirection approach employed here, or a generalised key/value store. While indirection incurs the cost of an additional contract call, and requires providers to change over time, it also provides for significantly enhanced flexibility over a key/value store; for that reason we selected this approach.

## Backwards Compatibility
There are no backwards compatibility concerns.

## Implementation
The canonical implementation of the metadata registry is as follows:
```
contract AddressMetadataRegistry {
mapping(address=>address) public provider;

function setProvider(address _provider) {
provider[msg.sender] = _provider;
}
}
```
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Recommend including an example provider as well that at least implements the required supportsInfercae code (and shows how to do the function signature hashing in Solidity).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed, though callers don't need to do the function hashing, just embed the appropriate constants (unless we can trust solidity to optimise those out, even if optimisation is turned off?)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think there is value in showing a user how to do the XOR, hashing and byte chopping in code, and Solidity is the language that we can be certain all readers of these understand.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Arachnid Arachnid Mar 12, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If Solidity doesn't optimise-away the hashing at compile-time, though, this is going to be a significant waste of gas.

Edit: And in any case this is likely something that should be demoed in 165.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would be OK (though not quite as satisfied) with an example written in JS if you think that is more reasonable. Solidity is just the "common language". I would not recommend people actually do the hashing in Solidity with each contract call.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Again, I don't think this is the place to do it - this is just a user of EIP165; any examples should probably be there.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a developer who didn't know of EIP 165's prior to reading this EIP, I was surprised to find it lacking an example for the "other side". If you think this EIP should depend on 165, then I recommend including such a dependency in the EIP and indicating how the two are connected to each other. In general, if an EIP doesn't reference any other EIPs, then I assume it can be consumed on its own (which is what I tried to do when reading this EIP) and it seems that your intent is that this EIP is not consumed on its own.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And of course after saying that, I re-read this EIP and found it did mention EIP 165...


## Copyright
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).