Skip to content
CCPEDIAby Unity Nodes
Mailing Lists/Seeking scope feedback and a Champion: Canton failure transcript interchangeSource on lists.sync.global ↗

Seeking scope feedback and a Champion: Canton failure transcript interchange

grants-discuss0 messages
Also mentions:CIP-0056CIP-0103CIP-0112
  1. #1Kacper13-08-2026source ↗
    Hello,

    The Canton Development Fund team suggested that I circulate a bounded overlap
    matrix and milestone outline before writing code or opening a proposal.

    I am an external independent developer. After reviewing current standards,
    repositories, and approved Development Fund work, I narrowed my original idea
    substantially. A general token/dApp conformance or failure-replay toolkit would
    overlap with:

    - the assigned Wallet Provider Compliance Test Suite in Wallet issue #1759;
    - the approved Canton dApp SDK and tooling work;
    - PartyLayer's CIP-0103 runner and failure scenarios;
    - BitDynamics DevKit's LocalNet, snapshot, replay, CI, and token-flow tooling;
    - Splice V1/V2 reference implementations and negative/compatibility tests; and
    - approved OpenZeppelin, reference-wallet, and SDK work.

    I am therefore asking whether one smaller gap is useful: **Canton Failure
    Transcript Interchange (CFTI)**.

    CFTI would be a versioned JSON schema, canonicalizer, redaction validator, and
    six to ten synthetic fixtures for the observable handoff of one CIP-0056 V1
    transfer-instruction failure through the synchronous CIP-0103 provider path.
    It would record only a synthetic registry request/response reference, the
    existing JSON-RPC request/error, ordered `txChanged` observations, opaque
    correlation placeholders, and a redaction manifest.

    It would not run a ledger, simulate a wallet, inject faults, manage LocalNet,
    replay ledger state, cover CIP-0112/V2, define a new error taxonomy, or issue a
    conformance score, badge, or certification. It would reject production data,
    party and contract identifiers, credentials, private URLs, timestamps, and
    implementation names.

    The provisional future-only outline is:

    1. **Weeks 1–2:** owner-selected fields, normative map, schema, and fail-closed
    redaction rules.
    2. **Weeks 3–5:** deterministic canonicalizer, validator, and six to ten
    synthetic fixtures.
    3. **Weeks 6–7:** one owner-selected emitter or consumer integration in an
    existing repository.
    4. **Week 8:** two intended-user evaluations, limitations, maintenance, and
    upstream handoff.

    No implementation has started. I am not claiming that this gap is unclaimed,
    that anyone will adopt it, or that I have a Champion, application, or award.
    Before proceeding, could the Token Standards / Asset Standards and dApp
    Integration reviewers help answer:

    1. Does Wallet issue #1759 already include an equivalent portable transcript
    format?
    2. Is one V1 transfer-instruction failure boundary useful, and which failure
    should be the first fixture?
    3. Should any artifact live in `canton-network/wallet`,
    `canton-network/splice`, or the DevKit work?
    4. Which two implementations would emit or consume the same format?
    5. If the slice is useful and non-duplicative, is a Tech & Ops member willing
    to Champion a refined proposal?

    If this is already covered, I will stop or contribute to the existing owner
    instead of creating a standalone project.

    Thank you,

    Kacper
    GitHub: https://github.com/cleanerzkp
  2. #2Kacper24-08-2026source ↗
    Hello,

    A brief follow-up on the bounded CFTI scope below. I have deliberately
    not started implementation while waiting for overlap and ownership
    feedback.

    To make the review low-effort, any one of the following answers would be enough:

    A. Already covered — point me to the owner/issue and I will stop the
    standalone proposal.
    B. Useful only as a contribution — identify the repository or funded
    project where the schema/fixtures should land.
    C. Potential standalone gap — identify a Tech & Ops member or SIG
    participant willing to review a three-milestone proposal and
    potentially act as Champion.

    The proposed artifact remains limited to a versioned,
    production-data-rejecting failure-transcript schema, deterministic
    canonicalizer/redaction validator, synthetic fixtures, and one
    owner-selected emitter or consumer integration. It does not include a
    ledger runner, wallet simulator, LocalNet management, certification,
    or a new error taxonomy.

    I would appreciate a clear stop / contribute / refine signal before
    investing in code.

    Thank you,
    Kacper
    GitHub: https://github.com/cleanerzkp