CIP: Packet Forward Middleware

[evan]

As an excersize, we can apply the framework currently being developed to help make a decision on including CIP-9 Packet Forward Middleware into the lemongrass meta CIP.

@rootulp

1. Battle tested: Does the proposed software have some history of deployment in production? If yes, have there been any known vulnerabilities or exploits?
2. Blast radius: If the proposed software has a vulnerability, what is the potential impact on the Celestia network? Does the proposed software introduce any new attack vectors?
3. Audit history: Has the proposed software been audited by a reputable security firm? If yes, what were the results of the audit? Has the proposed software undergone modifications since the audit?
4. Complexity: How complex is the proposed software modification?

[I’m only speaking from my point of view ofc]

1. Battle tested:

The PFM is not only live in production for chains that secure a lot of economic value, such as the cosmos hub, but has also been used heavily during that time. Bugs and vulnerabilities have been found, but they’ve also since been fixed.

2. Blast radius:

While this can be difficult to gage, it’s feasible that a bug that the PFM contributes to could impact user funds. That might not be saying that much, since it’s difficult to change the state machine and have 0 impact.

3. Audit History:

We recently found out that the PFM will infact be audited by a very reputable team, Zelic. The audits should conclude sometime in June.

4. Complexity:

While the PFM does exist within a complex system, the code itself is quite small.

5. Desire from users and the ecosystem: ++

Not only does the PFM allow for dramatically improved UX, but it is quickly becoming an ecosystem standard that members directly in and adjacent to Celestia’s rely on.