Expanding Beyond Mainnet

[nick.eth]

@raffy

Chain-specific subdomains would only be if ENS wanted official L2 registrations. Since anyone can offer L2 registrations off an owned L1 node today, the unique advantage of *.op.eth would be the length. The only other way for an L2 to get short names would be for someone to buy and import a TLD ($$$$) or very short 2LD.

Ah, I see. Anyone can implement this, though, using custom resolvers; is there a strong benefit to an ‘official’ subdomain registrar for each chain?

@raffy

No, since the user doesn’t own the reverse node.

They absolutely can - you can call claim on the reverse registrar to own the node.

@raffy

Setup: you have raffy.eth on L1 and you want the records (and subs) on L2. With the BridgedResolver, you can use the existing ENS infrastructure for managing records, you just need another chain with a node that you control.

I see what you mean here. One problem with this is that it restricts you to single ownership of a name; if you want to transfer ownership of the name, you have to also transfer all the records to a new node. It seems to me it’d be better to be able to just create UUID or sequentially numbered names and use one of those instead.

@raffy

Initially, I thought the same thing, however you only need RPCs to chains that allow public registration. By public, I mean that there is a registrar (that isn’t the reverse registrar.)

Even then, I don’t think there are advantages to this method that outweigh the cost of maintaining such a list. Gateways neatly sidestep the need for this.

@raffy

• The RPCs could be greatly restricted too: read-only, top-level calls to Registry or Resolver contracts only. Customizing the URL of the RPC could be a client feature (eg. if you run your own node(s), don’t want doxxed, etc.)

Having to maintain our own RPC endpoints would be even worse! What would be the advantage over just hosting gateways?

@raffy

My concern about the CCIP approach is that all of the complexity is hidden inside the resolver contracts. To resolve a few hundred names requires thousands of HTTP requests. With EVM gateway, you also need storage proofs.

Those proofs are a crucial part of the security guarantee. If we simply tell people to “resolve this on chain x”, all those guarantees go away unless the user happens to have a local node for that chain. Public RPC endpoints for those chains could simply return false results with no consequence.