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

Lockable resolver #262

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Lockable resolver #262

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

serenae-fansubs
Copy link
Contributor

Lock specific record types

  • lockABI(node)
  • lockAddr(node)
  • lockContenthash(node)
  • lockDNS(node)
  • lockInterface(node)
  • lockName(node)
  • lockPubkey(node)
  • lockText(node)

Lock specific text record keys but not others

  • lockText(node, 'avatar')
  • lockText(node, 'url')

Lock everything

  • lockAll(node)

Once a specific record type (or everything) is locked, cannot be unlocked. Once at least one lock is performed, that node will no longer be clearable (cannot increment version).

This can be used in conjunction with the CANNOT_SET_RESOLVER fuse on wrapped names to create an immutable name that is guaranteed to resolve to records forever (or at least until the name expires).

@Arachnid
Copy link
Member

Is this ready for review?

@jefflau
Copy link
Member

jefflau commented Jul 18, 2023

From a high level, should we consider adding a function or functions that will first check if is a) wrapped, and b) has burnt CANNOT_SET_RESOLVER and then c) the record type is locked. This could then be used as by clients to know if a record is truly immutable, or it's just the resolver that has the record locked

@serenae-fansubs
Copy link
Contributor Author

From a high level, should we consider adding a function or functions that will first check if is a) wrapped, and b) has burnt CANNOT_SET_RESOLVER and then c) the record type is locked. This could then be used as by clients to know if a record is truly immutable, or it's just the resolver that has the record locked

That makes sense, I can add something like that.

Also, another consideration is the expiry of the name, and whether that should clear any locks. That would increase the complexity of this contract though.

As it stands now, if this was added into the Public Resolver, then any locks for a particular node would be permanent for that particular resolver deployment. So if Owner A locks the ETH address, but then the name expires and someone re-registers the name, Owner B would not be able to change the ETH address (that is of course, the whole point). So Owner B would be forced to update to a different resolver first.

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.

None yet

3 participants