Skip to content

74 updates#476

Open
mvadari wants to merge 6 commits intoXRPLF:masterfrom
mvadari:74-updates
Open

74 updates#476
mvadari wants to merge 6 commits intoXRPLF:masterfrom
mvadari:74-updates

Conversation

@mvadari
Copy link
Collaborator

@mvadari mvadari commented Feb 20, 2026

High Level Overview of Change

This PR update XLS-49 and XLS-74 to follow the latest format and remove mentions of XLS-49 from XLS-74.

Context of Change

updates

Type of Change

  • New XLS Draft
  • XLS Update (changes to an existing XLS)
  • XLS Status Change (e.g., Draft → Final, Draft → Stagnant)
  • Process/Meta (changes to CONTRIBUTING.md, XLS-1, templates, etc.)
  • Infrastructure (CI, workflows, scripts, website)
  • Documentation (README updates, typo fixes)

@mvadari mvadari requested a review from sappenin February 20, 2026 23:06
Copy link
Collaborator

@sappenin sappenin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall LGTM, just a few comments (but they might not exactly align with XLS-0001, so take them or leave them).

This document describes a proposal for supporting multiple signer lists per account. The current system of global signer lists will continue to be supported, but we propose adding **per-transaction-type signer lists**. Accounts can set up signer lists that only have the power to send **transactions of one specific type** on behalf of the account.

This proposal is related to [XLS-31](https://github.com/XRPLF/XRPL-Standards/discussions/77), but broader in scope.
## 2. Motivation
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This section feels like it's mostly repeating what's in the abstract. I like a good Motivation section in specs though, so maybe consider removing some of the redundancy from the Abstract?

```

### 3.1. Fields
## 6. Rationale
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Consider renaming this section to be Design Rational to better distinguish this section from the Motivation section above?

I also prefer an FAQ-style section (with that as the section name) over this kind of section, so the reader can properly frame any rationalization.

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.

2 participants