Open
Conversation
Collaborator
Author
|
The remaining validation error is due to a missing Security section. It's out of scope for this PR to add such a section. |
mvadari
reviewed
Feb 23, 2026
mvadari
reviewed
Feb 23, 2026
mvadari
reviewed
Feb 23, 2026
…tion - Add Example JSON sections for Vault ledger entry and all transactions (VaultCreate, VaultSet, VaultDelete, VaultDeposit, VaultWithdraw, VaultClawback, Payment) with real transaction data - Add invariants for the Vault ledger entry (universal checks) and all transaction types derived from the ValidVault invariant checker - Restructure section 10 from "API" to "RPC: vault_info" matching the amendment template format with Request Fields, Response Fields, Failure Conditions, Example Request, and Example Response subsections - Update response fields table with missing fields (Data, Asset.mpt_issuance_id, shares.DomainID, shares.MPTokenMetadata) and correct Always Present values - Update response examples to use proper JSON format with response envelope - Add section 9.1 Fields for Payment transaction - Remove Index section and all Return to Index links Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Reorganize top-level sections: Abstract (1), Introduction (2), Specification (3), Rationale (4), Security Considerations (5), Appendix - Move all ledger entry, transaction, and RPC sections under "3. Specification" as subsections (3.1-3.9) - Remove "1.1 Overview" heading, merge content into Introduction body - Renumber Introduction subsections: Terminology (2.1), Actors (2.2), Connecting to the Vault (2.3) - Demote all specification headings by one level with new numbering - Add Rationale section explaining decoupled vault design - Rename FAQ section to "Appendix A: FAQ" with A.x numbering - Fix heading levels for Key Variables and Vault State Update Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Collaborator
Author
|
@mvadari , I completely restructured the specification to match the template. |
mvadari
reviewed
Feb 24, 2026
mvadari
reviewed
Feb 24, 2026
mvadari
reviewed
Feb 24, 2026
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this supposed to be Final now?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not yet, I'd like to include the fix amendment changes before marking it as Final.
mvadari
reviewed
Feb 24, 2026
mvadari
reviewed
Feb 24, 2026
mvadari
reviewed
Feb 24, 2026
This was referenced Feb 24, 2026
Collaborator
Author
|
Actually, @mvadari, it makes no sense to add error codes in a separate PR. I'm adding them here. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
High Level Overview of Change
This PR restructures XLS-65 specfication, without functional changes.
Context of Change
Type of Change