Change ICA Version Prefix

[colin-axner]

Summary

Adjust from ics-27 -> ics27. Ideally fix on the specification as well

---

For Admin Use

• Not duplicate issue
• Appropriate labels applied
• Appropriate contributors tagged/assigned

[damiannolan]

Question: Do we really want to maintain another const here for ICAPrefix?

The spec seems to indicate that the prefix should be the version prefix, i.e. ics27-1.
See under Technical Specification -> Contract:

// The port id will look like: ics27-1-{connection-number}-{counterparty-connection-number}-{owner-address}

If this is the case we can simply remove the ICAPrefix const and use VersionPrefix instead. The port identifier will then conform to the spec as defined above.
Thoughts @colin-axner @seantking ?

[colin-axner]

I remember there being open discussion between @seantking and I about whether the version number needed to be included in the portID. This is primarily a concern in account recovery (if a channel closes via a light client attack). We can discuss this during the internal audit

Lets use the version prefix for now, unfortunately the portID will still be a little hard to read

[seantking]

My idea for having the version in the port-id was essentially a paranoid attempt at future-proofing to ease a potential migration to version 2 of interchain accounts (if such a thing were to exist).

I figured if we had a mapping of v1 accounts and a mapping of v2 accounts it would make backward compatibility more straightforward.

[damiannolan]

Closed by #434