Conversation
|
The remaining validation error is due to a missing Security section. It's out of scope for this PR to add such a section. |
…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>
|
@mvadari , I completely restructured the specification to match the template. |
|
|
||
| A protocol connecting to a Vault must track its debt. Furthermore, the updates to the Vault state when funds are removed or added back must be handled in the transactors of the protocol. For an example, please refer to the [Lending Protocol](https://github.com/XRPLF/XRPL-Standards/discussions/190) specification. | ||
|
|
||
| [**Return to Index**](#index) | ||
| ## 3. Specification |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you remove the Specification heading and move everything out by one level, you won't run out of Markdown heading depth.
(P.S. AI handles this sort of direction well)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nope, can't do that. It's part of the mandated spec. format :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The opposite is part of the mandated spec format :)
|
Actually, @mvadari, it makes no sense to add error codes in a separate PR. I'm adding them here. |
| @@ -71,130 +40,128 @@ Additionally, an issuer can perform a **Clawback** operation: | |||
|
|
|||
| - **`VaultClawback`**: Allows the issuer of an IOU or MPT to claw back funds from the vault, as outlined in the [Clawback documentation](https://xrpl.org/docs/use-cases/tokenization/stablecoin-issuer#clawback). | |||
|
|
|||
| #### 1.1.1 Vault Ownership and Management | |||
| **Vault Ownership and Management** | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are the numbers removed from these?
|
|
||
| | **Field** | **Description** | **Value** | | ||
| | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------- | | ||
| | `Issuer` | The AccountID of the Vault's _pseudo-account_. | _pseudo-account_ ID | | ||
| | `Issuer` | The ACCOUNTID of the Vault's _pseudo-account_. | _pseudo-account_ ID | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I disagree with this change
| [**Return to Index**](#index) | ||
| #### 3.1.10 Invariants | ||
|
|
||
| - A transaction must not modify more than one `Vault` object. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should these be numbered too?
| @@ -8,47 +8,16 @@ | |||
| category: Amendment | |||
| requires: [XLS-33](../XLS-0033-multi-purpose-tokens/README.md) | |||
| created: 2024-04-12 | |||
| updated: 2025-11-17 | |||
| updated: 2026-02-11 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: date should be updated
High Level Overview of Change
This PR restructures XLS-65 specfication, without functional changes.
Context of Change
Type of Change