Token Validation (#902)

* init

* permissions init

* start of permissions service

* Token Validator (#6)

* File naming convention

* Remove previous versions

* remove reference to the old variable

* Update frontmatter as per @Arachnid

* Switch to byte

EIPS/eip-902.md

@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+---
+eip: 902
+title: Token Validation
+author: Brooklyn Zelenka <brooklyn@finhaven.com>, Tom Carchrae <tom@finhaven.com>, Gleb Naumenko <gleb@finhaven.com>
+type: Standards Track
+category: ERC
+status: Draft
+created: 2018-02-14
+---
+
+## Simple Summary
+A protocol for services providing token ownership and transfer validation.
+
+## Abstract
+This standard provides a registry contract method for authorizing token transfers.
+By nature, this covers both initially issuing tokens to users (ie: transfer from contract to owner),
+transferring tokens between users, and token spends.
+
+## Motivation
+The tokenization of assets has wide application,
+not least of which is financial instruments such as securities.
+Most jurisdictions have placed legal constraints on what may be traded,
+and who can hold such tokens which are regarded as securities. Broadly this includes KYC and AML validation,
+but may also include time-based spend limits, total volume of transactions, and so on.
+
+Regulators and sanctioned third-party compliance agencies need some way to link
+off-chain compliance information such as identity and residency to an on-chain service.
+The application of this design is broader than legal regulation, encompassing all manner
+of business logic permissions for the creation, management, and trading of tokens.
+
+## Specification
+
+### TokenValidator
+
+```solidity
+interface TokenValidator {
+  function check(
+    address _token,
+    address _subject
+  ) public returns(byte result)
+
+  function check(
+    address _token,
+    address _from,
+    address _to,
+    uint256 _amount
+  ) public returns (byte result)
+}
+```
+
+#### Methods
+
+##### check/2
+
+`function check(address _token, address _subject) public returns (byte _resultCode)`
+
+> parameters
+> * `_token`: the token under review
+> * `_subject`: the user or contract to check
+>
+> *returns* a one-byte status code, often encoded as hex
+
+##### check/4
+
+`function check(address token, address from, address to, uint256 amount) public returns (byte resultCode)`
+
+> parameters
+> * `_token`: the token under review
+> * `_from`: in the case of a transfer, who is relinquishing token ownership
+> * `_to`: in the case of a transfer, who is accepting token ownership
+> * `_amount`: The number of tokens being transferred
+>
+> *returns* a one-byte status code, often encoded as hex
+
+### ValidatedToken
+
+```solidity
+interface ValidatedToken {
+  event Validation(
+    address indexed subject,
+    byte   indexed result
+  )
+
+  event Validation(
+    address indexed from,
+    address indexed to,
+    uint256 value,
+    byte   indexed result
+  )
+}
+```
+
+#### Events
+
+##### Validation/2
+
+`event Validation(address indexed subject, byte indexed resultCode)`
+
+This event MUST be fired on return from a call to a `TokenValidator.check/2`.
+
+> parameters
+> * `subject`: the user or contract that was checked
+> * `resultCode`: a status code
+
+
+##### Validation/4
+
+```solidity
+event Validation(
+  address indexed from,
+  address indexed to,
+  uint256 amount,
+  byte   indexed result
+)
+```
+
+This event MUST be fired on return from a call to a `TokenValidator.check/4`.
+
+> parameters
+> * `from`: in the case of a transfer, who is relinquishing token ownership
+> * `to`: in the case of a transfer, who is accepting token ownership
+> * `amount`: The number of tokens being transferred
+> * `resultCode`: a status code
+
+## Rationale
+
+This proposal includes a financial permissions system on top of any financial token.
+This design is not a general roles/permission system. In any system, the more you know
+about the context where a function will be called, the more powerful your function can be.
+By restricting ourselves to token transfers (ex. ERC20 or EIP-777), we can make
+assumptions about the use cases our validators will need to handle, and can make
+the API both small, useful, and extensible.
+
+The events are fired by the calling token. Since `Validator`s may aggregate or delegate
+to other `Validator`s, it would generate a lot of useless events were it the
+`Validator`'s responsibility. This is also the reason why we include the `token`
+in the `call/4` arguments: a `Validator` cannot rely on `msg.sender` to determine
+the token that the call is concerning.
+
+We have also seen a similar design from [R-Token](https://github.com/harborhq/r-token) that uses an additional field: `spender`.
+While there are potential use cases for this, it's not widely used enough to justify passing
+a dummy value along with every call. Instead, such a call would look more like this:
+
+```solidity
+function approve(address spender, uint amount) public returns (bool success) {
+    if (validator.check(this, msg.sender, spender, amount) == okStatusCode) {
+        allowed[msg.sender][spender] = amount;
+        Approval(msg.sender, spender, amount);
+        return true;
+    } else {
+        return false;
+    }
+}
+```
+
+A second `check/2` function is also required, that is more general-purpose, and does not
+specify a transfer amount or recipient. This is intended for general checks,
+such as checking roles (admin, owner, &c), or if a user is on a simple whitelist.
+
+We have left the decision to make associated `Validator` addresses public, private, or hardcoded
+up to the implementer. The proposed design does not include a centralized registry.
+It also does not include an interface for a `Validated` contract.
+A token may require one or many `Validator`s for different purposes,
+requiring different validations for different, or just a single `Validator`.
+The potential use cases are too varied to provide a single unified set of methods.
+We have provided a set of example contracts [here](https://github.com/Finhaven/ValidatedToken/)
+that may be inherited from for common use cases.
+
+The status codes in the `byte` returns are unspecified. Any status code scheme
+may be used, though a general status code proposal is fortcoming.
+
+By only defining the validation check, this standard is widely compatible with
+ERC-20, EIP-721, EIP-777, future token standards, centralized and decentralized exchanges,
+and so on.
+
+## Implementation
+[Reference implementations](https://github.com/Finhaven/ValidatedToken/)
+
+## Copyright
+Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).