FIP-0044 Add FIP for Standard Authentication Method for Actors #424
Conversation
arajasek
requested review from
anorth,
jennijuju,
kaitlin-beegle and
momack2
as code owners
|
This will be fip-0044 |
| user-defined actors to serve as clients for storage deals. | ||
|
|
||
| It will be infeasible to modify the builtin-actors themselves every time we want to be able to authorize some new kind of information, and doing so will require more total messages | ||
| to be landing on the Filecoin blockchain. Instead, a flexible, universal approach for actors to authorize data would be preferred. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mention the concrete capability motivation of user actors being clients of the built-in market.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do so in the previous paragraph, will move things around.
| @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| fip: <to be assigned> | |||
jennijuju
changed the title
|
@arajasek did you maybe forgot to push a commit? There are a bunch of review comments marked as resolved which aren't. |
|
@Kubuxu Got distracted and never pushed! Doing so now! |
|
Now ready for another review. |
arajasek
force-pushed
the
asr/authenticate-message
branch
from
a6f02b6 to
c4e284b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In order to be a standard, we need a standard method number, which this FIP doesn't propose. I think that's ok, but we should discuss it. Mention that the intention is to re-export this method via a standard calling convention such as FRC-0042 or others that may emerge.
FIPS/fip-0044.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| This proposal is generally well-aligned with the incentives of the network. It can be considered | ||
| as a simpler replacement for FIP-0035, with the only drawback being that this proposal as currently written does not allow for the existing built-in multisig actor to be a storage client. | ||
| It would be trivial to add a similar `verify_authorization` method to the built-in multisig actor, though. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If it's trivial we should do it. I'm not sure it is.
arajasek
force-pushed
the
asr/authenticate-message
branch
from
c4e284b to
66d9f23
Compare
First draft of a replacement for FIP-0035, see #413 .
An open question is how much to couple this FIP to the discussion in #382 (if at all). Feedback welcome!