-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
Extrinsic v5 definition and specification #124
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 4 commits
380bdbb
01bc758
f2f4f19
dd9e353
e13f615
0ac87df
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ | ||||||
| # RFC-0124: Extrinsic version 5 | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| | | | | ||||||
| | --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ||||||
| | **Start Date** | 18 October 2024 | | ||||||
| | **Description** | Definition and specification of version 5 extrinsics | | ||||||
| | **Authors** | George Pisaltu | | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| ## Summary | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| This RFC proposes the definition of version 5 extrinsics along with changes to the specification and encoding from version 4. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| ## Motivation | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| [RFC84](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/RFCs/blob/main/text/0084-general-transaction-extrinsic-format.md) introduced the specification of `General` transactions, a new type of extrinsic besides the `Signed` and `Unsigned` variants available previously in version 4. Additionally, [RFC99](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/RFCs/blob/main/text/0099-transaction-extension-version.md) introduced versioning of transaction extensions through an extra byte in the extrinsic encoding. Both of these changes require an extrinsic format version bump as both the semantics around extensions as well as the actual encoding of extrinsics need to change to accommodate these new features. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| ## Stakeholders | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| - Runtime users | ||||||
| - Runtime devs | ||||||
| - Wallet devs | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| ## Explanation | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| ### Changes to extrinsic authorization | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| The introduction of `General` transactions allows the authorization of any and all origins through | ||||||
| extensions. This means that, with the appropriate extension, `General` transactions are capable of | ||||||
| replicating the same behavior present day v4 `Signed` transactions. Specifically for Polkadot | ||||||
| chains, an example implementation for such an extension is | ||||||
| [`VerifySignature`](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/tree/master/substrate/frame/verify-signature), | ||||||
| introduced in the Transaction Extension | ||||||
| [PR3685](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/3685). Other extensions can be inserted | ||||||
| into the extension pipeline to authorize different custom origins. Therefore, a `Signed` extrinsic | ||||||
| variant is redundant to a `General` one strictly in terms of functionality available to users and | ||||||
| would eventually need to be deprecated and removed. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| ### Encoding format for version 5 | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| As with version 4, the encoded v5 extrinsics will still be an array of SCALE encoded bytes, starting | ||||||
| with the encoded length of the following bytes. The leading byte will determine the version and type | ||||||
| of extrinsic, as specified by | ||||||
| [RFC84](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/RFCs/blob/main/text/0084-general-transaction-extrinsic-format.md), | ||||||
| with the addition that the `Signed` variant will not be supported for v5 extrinsics, for reasons | ||||||
| mentioned above. | ||||||
georgepisaltu marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| NOTE: For `Bare` extrinsics, the following bytes will just be the encoded call and nothing else. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| For `General` transactions, as stated in | ||||||
| [RFC99](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/RFCs/blob/main/text/0099-transaction-extension-version.md), | ||||||
| an extension version byte must be added in the next extrinsic version. This byte should allow | ||||||
georgepisaltu marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
| runtimes to expose more than one set of extensions which can be used for a transaction. As far as | ||||||
| the v5 extrinsic encoding is concerned, this extension byte should be encoded immediately after the | ||||||
| leading encoding byte. The extension version byte should be included in payloads to be signed by all | ||||||
| extensions configured by runtime devs to ensure a user's extension version choice cannot be altered | ||||||
| by third parties. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| After the extension version byte, the extensions will be encoded next, followed by the call itself. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| A quick visualization of the encoding: | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| - `Bare` extrinsics: `(extrinsic_encoded_len, 0b0000_0101, call)` | ||||||
| - `General` transactions: `(extrinsic_encoded_len, , 0b0100_0101, extension_version_byte, extension, call)` | ||||||
georgepisaltu marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
| - `General` transactions: `(extrinsic_encoded_len, , 0b0100_0101, extension_version_byte, extension, call)` | |
| - `General` transactions: `(extrinsic_encoded_len, , 0b0100_0101, extensions_version_byte, extensions, call)` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The extension itself is usually a tuple of multiple extensions, generally referred to as the extension pipeline. Technically it's only one extension, the TxExtension commonly defined in runtimes, but that is always a tuple of extensions like CheckNonce, CheckWeight, ChargeTransactionPayment etc., so it would be only one extension version, as it is the version of the tuple, but there are multiple extensions in the pipeline.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as before, this should not explain HOW polkadot-sdk will use the interface introduced in this RFC, but rather the shape of it and its goals. This paragraph adds very little value on that regard IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The goal of it is to explain how to use the new v5 format to achieve provide the same functionality as signed transactions. I then use the example in polkadot-sdk to show this. The previous phrasing was a bit off and the intent wasn't clear, hopefully now it's better.
I don't think it's wrong to have links to polkadot-sdk or reference stuff from there. polkadot-sdk is used right now in Polkadot and Kusama runtimes, and quite extensively I might add. Even if we might not want to use it to define future functionality, it's inevitable that describing current functionality will point to polkadot-sdk. The upstream/consumer dependency is already there, I think making the RFC overly general by avoiding specific examples doesn't help in any way, it just makes it harder to read and understand. This does not in any way mean that the example pulled from polkadot-sdk is the only accepted implementation of specified functionality, it just helps me not unfurl a lot of code in this file.
That said, if others consider the examples are not useful, I will remove them.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will most likely depend on which origin and kind of signature is used. For instance, ZK circuits might have different levels of proofs and might not be signing the whole payload. This should go to another RFC, which defines every particular VerifySignature-like extension.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this is just an example on how to achieve Signed functionality in v5. I agree that the "chosen" way of providing this functionality in the actual runtimes should be a different RFC, dependent on this one.
However, there should be only one VerifySignature-like extension used to replicate this signed behavior. There is no need to have multiple extensions for this purpose. For custom origins, users can create infinite variations of an authorization extension and that doesn't need an RFC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, but anyways this should go on a different RFC. I agree that VerifySignature-extension requires its own RFC, yes, but this has nothing to do with extrnsics v5 RFC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Again, VerifySignature is just an example, and also very clearly labeled as an example in the latest revision of the RFC. Because of the explanation above and the fact that it's not obvious from the start what the extension pipeline should look like for v5 extrinsics, I think the example is useful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the example is useful, and since it's also explicitly labeled as an example I see no reason to remove it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not a drawback IMO. Metadata v15 should show v4 and metadata v16 and ahead have a vector of extrinsic versions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is something extra to support in the metadata for both the runtime and users, is this not a drawback?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it is both a drawback and an improvement - the new metadata support is an improvement, but having to do this enhancement to the metadata is a drawback to this RFC 😛
maybe add another line explicitly calling out that adding this metadata enhancement is ultimately a good thing that should be useful for potential future scenarios too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added the explanation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not true. Signature schemes and addresses were configurable by runtime devs through rust generics. For example, Moonbeam uses only ECDSA signatures with EVM-like addresses.
Besides that, I wouldn't mention VerifySignature since it should be RFC-ed anyways.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Your statement about configurable signature schemes is true. However, I still consider my statement to be true because:
- The signing payload generation algorithm was hardcoded; this is not the case anymore as any extension can take the inherited implication and add or subtract any data to it and mutate it in any way (such as hashing it - or not) before actually creating a signature.
- There are now multiple ways of ending up with a
Signedorigin variant, with arbitrary logic in anyTransactionExtensionbeing able to authorize that origin; before, a user HAD to provide a transaction signed by a specific account.
All of this static logic is now moved to extensions. The extensions receive the inherited implication, the generation of which is still hardcoded and handled in this RFC, but is not in any way mandatory to be used in any signing scheme.
I'd agree though that the phrasing isn't clear, but I'm not sure how to improve it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the phrasing is fine as it is. The point is to highlight the increase in configurability, which it does.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Besides some wording suggestions, I don't think we should introduce links to
polkadot-sdkrepo. The idea of authorization through transaction extensions is already clear without the example IMO.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is in the explanation section and I think it adds valuable context to the discussion. I appreciate that you're familiar with the idea of authorization through transaction extensions, but I think it's still a novel topic and the example is useful. However, if others disagree, I will remove it.