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

Create recommended gRPC query routes/proto files #568

Open
colin-axner opened this issue Apr 29, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Create recommended gRPC query routes/proto files #568

colin-axner opened this issue Apr 29, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
feature Possible future feature.

Comments

@colin-axner
Copy link
Contributor

To improve interoperability and ease of integration of IBC implementations into relayers, ICS should construct a recommended set of routes and their corresponding Request and Response definitions. If IBC implementations support gRPC, they should implement the set of recommended gRPC routes/definitions to enable relayers to costlessly integrate that implementation (query wise)

Each request should contain a Height key indicating the query height the request should be performed at. The height should take into account the delayed execution models of the underlying consensus engine (if necessary). For example, ibc-go should apply the -1 and +1 to the query and proof height so that the returned proofs work for the specified height (and relayers would not need to worry about which implementations use which execution models). A height of 0 should indicate using the latest height.

All responses should contain the query value, a proof, and proof height

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor

cwgoes commented Apr 30, 2021

I agree, this would be quite nice to standardise.

@colin-axner
Copy link
Contributor Author

colin-axner commented Jul 12, 2021

Anyone have preferences for the Height field name and type?

@mpoke mpoke added the feature Possible future feature. label Mar 17, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature Possible future feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants