ERC-5219 - Contract Resource Requests

Created	2022-07-10
Status	Final
Category	ERC
Type	Standards Track
Authors

Abstract

This EIP standardizes an interface to make resource requests to smart contracts and to receive HTTP-like responses.

Motivation

Ethereum is the most-established blockchain for building decentralized applications (referred to as DApps). Due to this, the Ethereum DApp ecosystem is very diverse. However, one issue that plagues DApps is the fact that they are not fully decentralized. Specifically, to interface a "decentralized" application, one first needs to access a centralized website containing the DApp's front-end code, presenting a few issues. The following are some risks associated with using centralized websites to interface with decentralized applications:

Trust Minimization: An unnecessarily large number of entities need to be trusted
Censorship: A centralized website is not resistant to being censored
Permanence: The interface may not have a mechanism that permits it to be permanently stored
Interoperability: Smart Contracts cannot directly interact with DApp interfaces

Specification

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

Name Resolution

EIPs that propose a name resolution mechanism MAY reference this EIP and MAY recommend that clients support their mechanism. Clients MAY also support regular DNS, as defined in RFC 1034 and RFC 1035.

Separation of Concerns

It is RECOMMENDED to separate the application logic from the front-end logic (the contract implementing the interface defined in Contract Interface).

Contract Interface

DApp contracts MUST implement the interface defined in the following file: Contract Interface.

Note to Implementers

To save gas costs, it is recommended to use the message/external-body MIME-type, which allows you to point to data that the smart contract might not have access to. For example, the following response would tell a client to fetch the data off of IPFS:

statusCode: 200
body: THIS IS NOT REALLY THE BODY!
headers:
  - key: Content-type
    value: message/external-body; access-type=URL; URL="ipfs://11148a173fd3e32c0fa78b90fe42d305f202244e2739"

Rationale

The request method was chosen to be readonly because all data should be sent to the contract from the parsed DApp. Here are some reasons why:

Submitting a transaction to send a request would be costly and would require waiting for the transaction to be mined, resulting in bad user experience.
Complicated front-end logic should not be stored in the smart contract, as it would be costly to deploy and would be better run on the end-user's machine.
Separation of Concerns: the front-end contract shouldn't have to worry about interacting with the back-end smart contract.
Other EIPs can be used to request state changing operations in conjunction with a 307 Temporary Redirect status code.

Instead of mimicking a full HTTP request, a highly slimmed version was chosen for the following reasons:

The only particularly relevant HTTP method is GET
Query parameters can be encoded in the resource.
Request headers are, for the most part, unnecessary for GET requests.

Backwards Compatibility

This EIP is backwards compatible with all standards listed in the Name Resolution section.

Security Considerations

The normal security considerations of accessing normal URLs apply here, such as potential privacy leakage by following 3XX redirects.