EIP Editing Office Hour #106 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

[music] Heat. [music] >> [music] >> 34.

Jesus. Thank you. Heat. >> Heat.

>> Thank you. Welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting 106. Today is July 14th and you can find the agenda on Ethereum/PM GitHub issue. The number is 2156. On agenda, we have some AC related PRs. We do have some proposals uh listed for moving into final review and miscellaneous apart from the list of draft EIPs. We are joined by editor Yohham uh Brower to help us review these proposals. Welcome Yohim.

>> Hey. >> All right. So we are joined by the author of um proposal which is moving into the final status. Uh the PR number is 1867 if you would like to address that first. >> Yeah, it's in the ERC 1867. >> Yes. All right. All right. >> We are joined by Cyber Sentry uh in case there are any questions. >> Yes. Okay. Let's let's see.

Is there someone in the mute? [music] Because I think I hear some background music or is it myself? >> No, I don't hear any noise in the background. >> Okay. I guess it's it's me. [music] It's me then. All right. This doesn't work.

Okay, that is interesting. Um yeah, I thought that we had at least at the botto flag if we reference ERC's or ERPs which are not >> 8004. Yes. >> Sorry. >> 8004. Yes, it is not in the final status. So it would be difficult to move this proposal forward if it has a mention of ERC 80004. >> Right. Okay. So ERC 8000. Uh yeah, this uh this [music] uh one is not final. Um but the bot is not flagging this. So I think yeah just just on this one. So in the um

previous versions when it was going through review and certainly through uh last call it it was it was discussed um and we took it out of requirements. >> Ah okay. Oh right I see. I see. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I see. I see. Okay. Okay. That that's that makes sense. Yeah. Um for wait where is it? Is it let me directly comment on the um on the PR. Uh because we want these

mentions to be reference to the [music] RFC URL. Let me actually get those URLs for you. What? Uh yeah, I will just comment that. So

you can directly Oh, wait. I can actually just hop this in. That's maybe easier. >> Are you happy for me to run them through straight away? Yeah. >> Yeah. So if you can can link these RFCs, I put it here in the chat. Um, >> yeah. Yeah, I got it. >> Yeah, >> I'll run that straight through now. >> Cool. Cool. Great. Great. >> Okay. So, this great I need friends.

Yeah. Okay. Um I think that um Okay. Yeah. So this reference is ESC 804 and [music] ERC 804 is currently in drafts. Um and I puja I think we cannot move this to final right because if there's a specification which depends on uh nonfinal EIP or ESC's then we cannot move this forward correctly.

>> That's correct. Yeah. I'm I'm still wondering like how did it come to last call. >> Right. Okay. Okay. It's just um it's an interesting one because we've got 8,04 in 8126. And the reason that we took it out was because it was a requirement at 8126, but obviously it's Yeah, I see what you're what you're saying there. Okay, let me let me see. Let me see have the Okay. Right. Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. We may we definitely have to take a look into it. It seems like

some something is not right there. >> Yeah. Okay. That's this uh Okay. Yeah. Just just Yeah, indeed. Because uh Yeah. So So this indeed has a reference to EIP or ERC 80004 which is not final. Uh this should have been flagged by the bot which it did not. Um, okay. I will I will point to that on this PR. Um, uh, uh, let's see [music] because that is very weird. Wait, it uses 8126 [music] which is final and it depends on 84

which is not final. Okay, that's that's that is something what we should really flag. Okay, so just for the context like this uh [music] ERC which I see you are also the author from of U that got merged to final and that should not have been merged to final because it depends on [music] this draft EIP. Um you are not an offer of this [music] ERC. Do you know um the status of this? Like is this moving forward? Is this do you know?

>> Yeah. So, we've we've set up a group um and the 84 team um and the 812696 team are in this group. So, we can definitely work forward on this and um look to move it on. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. So yeah, I have to disappoint you that well I will not move this forward because it this ESC is still [music] left. Um and also sorry that that that that this got merged because that might give the indication that uh well this should this should not have been merged. [music] Um yeah we we will address that. Uh one of the things like um if these uh oh

wait you're in the scoop. Yeah. Okay. Um because one of the things is that if this EC would not have been moving forward then you could also fork it. Uh but of course you want to create like a standard what what people use and you do not want to have like two or three or [music] four different standards where where everyone refers to to a different one. Uh so this should first be moved to uh to final actually [music] before we can uh move this one forward. Um, Puja, can you maybe create like a note on the editor's channel or maybe uh in the yeah in like the right place that we should really look at this bot because it should really flag that uh especially

that uh in the requirements. So this is this is a required ERC of this final ERP that should absolutely have been flagged by the bot. Um we have to look into why it doesn't do that because this is not uh not [music] correct >> rightly >> mention it. Yes please go ahead. So one thing that I wanted to check with author here like how much dependent I don't know uh um if this is the right question to ask for the proposal that we are looking into review today which is supposedly moving into final status. Do you see mention of

8004 there? uh because you know if not then there you can perhaps remove it and you can have 8126 in the um required section which would help move that proposal into final. But at the uh back end we should definitely take a look at it like why 8004 was not flagged when 8126 moved into final status. >> Yeah, got it. Um so within 8196 um 8004 was removed as a requirement um for that reason that we've identified today. Um I can look at the text um and thin that out as well. But um I

think as we we said many weeks ago I you know bringing other standards through it's part of the um process. So I'm content to continue to link in with the 814 to to look to come through together. >> Yeah, I I think it's a question for co-authors. You might want to check and if there is a decision where where you can actually drop 8004 from 819. >> Yeah. [music] >> Then there is a way out. Um but there are possibility that uh editors may want to uh like revisit 8126 and we will get back to you on what to do there.

>> It's a it's a tricky one. when um >> when when this standard was being built out it was um for the Ethereum Foundation's PhD program AI agent authenticated wallet which one of the requirements was that 804 had to be used. It was um Ethereum Foundation RFP16 um which started the the ball rolling with this one. But yeah, I'm definitely going to look back at it and see um see how we move forward. Now, >> another recommendation here is as Yam mentioned that please work with the team of 804 because I see um the proposal 4337 that was in non-final status for

very long time and that kind of disappointed some of the authors who wanted to use proposal 4337. [music] I don't want 804 to be that case. So if [music] there is any way you can work with authors and try to push the proposal towards final [music] that would be highly appreciated. >> Yeah definitely I will. >> Yeah thanks a lot. Like this is also somewhat surprising to me because when I check 8126 [music] then this EIP or ERC is also not final.

So >> definitely the part was broken at that time. Yes. Yeah. I mean this is and yeah. Okay. Yeah. This is something what what what what we should um I think we should actually discuss this on an EIP IP meeting because uh the problem with this is that we now have final EIP which reference to draft EIPs and um moving the process forward. We of course once like the the path that we now say uh remove the uh the 804 from the text [music] of this uh of of of of this um of this ERC. Um the problem is

that that we then still implicitly depend [music] on draft ERC's uh and we also cannot really start changing [music] final ERCs or ERBs. Yeah. Okay. We I we we have to we have to discuss [music] this at at an editor. I think how to to solve this because now we have Yeah, I I do not want to check like how much other EIPs or ESC's also have this problem because that might open like a rabbit hole of uh um of things. Okay, let me quickly check or not quickly um because I think the uh yeah I I don't [music] think I see anything else what should prevent moving this to

to final. yeah okay we we have to we have to we have to figure out what to do with this draft thing but that that will be an Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So for now I can't can't move this forward but we will get back uh back to you. >> Yeah and I will add it in [clears throat] a meeting so we have a discussion slash discussion on this topic. >> Yes. Yes. Thanks. Thanks. >> All right you >> yes. Thank you. >> So the next one is ACD related. The first two PRs added there was added by Greg. He's on the call. I believe he's looking for some support and with respect to number and asset adding to the proposal.

>> Yes, let's see. Okay, let's give this a number. One second. It just needs a number. >> Yes, I will give it a number when I find our species. And um once it has a number um it has assets which themselves are directories and I can't quite figure out how to make that happen. And uh 7979 also has assets one of which is a directory itself.

>> yes one second I'm first going to give you a number. So you you saying that this PR also has assets. >> It has assets which themselves are directories. Then the actual assets are inside those >> Okay. Um but I do not see them in this uh PR. >> No, no, I can't make that PR because it [music] refers to a number that doesn't exist yet. >> Okay. Okay. So if I give you a number then you can also upload these assets.

[music] Right. >> Right. But I'm I'm not sure how how to present a whole directory as an asset rather than [music] a file. >> Uh okay. Uh I think I think I get it. Okay. So let me uh >> find you a Yeah, >> the the Jet Hub interface indicated that I needed push permissions to [music] the repo to do that, which of course I don't have. >> Okay. Um yes. So what do you So on your on your local computer, do you have like uh these files inside the

assets directory? >> Um I'm not working on my local computer really. I'm I'm just using the interface directly on JHub. Um >> Oh, >> I I do far less damage that way. [laughter] >> Okay. So what what what you can do? Yeah, I think this is how you supposed to do this. Um, so on your Okay, so for just for for the record, [music] I'm I always >> I can pull it down to my to my own computer and do that whole thing.

[music] Yeah, it's not a problem. I just don't usually do it that way. >> What I think is what you can do is so [music] you have this PR open, which I just gave it a number by the way. So you can [music] uh you can change this >> um is that uh so this is your your [music] branch um so your local clone of this repository. So if you would add uh to your own version of the EIP so this is your fork >> link that linked that in the chat. Um so if you [music] would create these files here in the assets folder >> okay >> then uh it should directly show up into the PR. So if [music] you would use

EIP-8337 >> and then you can put the files in there and then you can also reference to those files from within your EIP. >> Great. Um, I'll try that and um get back to you if I have a problem. >> Yeah, [music] sounds good. Sounds good. Okay, let's let's go over this one to see if we are you are you proposing this for ACD? >> Um, soon enough. Yes. >> Okay, cool. Then uh let's directly do this.

It's I I pulled the validation out [music] of 7979. It was just getting too big and they really were separate. And in in [music] the breakout, the question of whether validation was actually necessary was coming up. So, for a number of reasons, it did better as a standalone proposal. >> Let's see. Guess what?

Uhhuh. Oxy in. Yeah, I would somehow also in this abstract already mention that this magic bytes uh is the EIP 2 3541 magic bytes.

The thing is that in EIP 3541 it is not called magic bytes. How is it actually called it? >> Which EIP is that now? >> It's uh so with the magic byes you mean the 0xe EF right? somewhere I said or maybe it got lost that the magic bites begin with EF. >> Okay, it's here. >> Magic. Magic is a placeholder for when we get together and there's various EIPs that are going to use that. Um, I can use some other placeholder, but basically there used to be or should be a note saying that the whole structure

of that is deferred and it it will begin with an EF, but otherwise it's [music] all deferred. >> I see. I see. >> Um, there was a note to that effect. I'll put it back if it disappeared in the editing. Okay, let me directly do this one. Okay. Um, what is this?

Yeah. So, these nodes [music] are nice. I also always like to acknowledge that I'm using AI. uh but we cannot have the entropic or [music] cloth into EIP text because of um >> what's what what's the word for it we do not want to to sponsor >> so I just say >> I just say AI >> yes you can use that and I would also be totally fine if you would remove this from the abstract um but what what what I would do is I would actually put this in the PR description Um, so this will then be part of the well the GitHub history or you would make this part of the commit message. So

then it is still part of the fail history but it is not actually in the fail itself. But I mean both both is fine. Both is fine. I will just um >> uh change this to AI and then you can decide for yourself what you >> the assets are a complete set of tests for this stuff which I could not have possibly written myself. Claude Claude even wrote in C a mini interpreter for EVM and timed both [music] direct execution and ZK proofing of running code on that interpreter and I'm just going okay thank you.

>> Yes yes yes. you just did in five minutes which might have taken me a month. >> Yeah, that that's that's the current time, right? That it's it's also still surprises me that >> I I have reviewed none of that code. Um simply the consensus of of all of the tests like agree with each other. I'm going okay um I'll leave it be for now. Yeah, I mean like the main thing is that uh that if if it is verified correctly or if it at least like I had a conversation with someone

and and one of the things they said was that the main point of of well not the main point but the thing with using AI is that uh you should really check is this actually what you want and then you [music] can also see AI as a tool to to figure out okay what is like good enough Um, [music] so yeah, >> it's like instant legacy code. It works, but nobody actually knows how or why, so you don't dare touch it. wait, let me actually change this because [music] um, this should be

>> right. Right? >> Because the fun thing is that now uh I I uh wait I do not want to apply it. Um that I thought why am I not get getting like a a rich uh render of this uh file? >> It's not not it's not marked down. So it is as a raw file which which is fine. [music] Also read the text. We took a totally decentralized version control system and recentized it on GitHub.

But now it's not really very good at either one. All right. Okay. So, this is one of these fails. So, um let me actually figure out how to Yes. [music] Okay. Let me Okay. Let me quickly check if what I'm suggesting is correct. Otherwise, I am

>> Say what? >> Yeah. I I I will just leave uh a message like how you can actually import these files in here so you can directly [music] link to them. I have to check like how that's >> it's not dot slash whatever it's in a directory but I forget which one.

>> This should work if you add this uh this this this [music] delta. So this extract >> Yeah. CFG. >> Yeah, I think the CFG is down [music] one level, but that's not it. That can be fixed later. >> Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I I will leave a a general comment uh as a review like uh these abbreviations please first define them before before use.

Um well risk is risk is a standard but >> yes I I I know but the the the thing is and I know this also like somewhat of a gray area because um like at some point you likely want to move this EIP at some point to final and uh like in 20 or 30 years like if you read this EIP again then this abbreviation might not be well-known SL standard anymore. [music] So that's why we want uh to to to to add but >> it's on the edge.

>> I agree. I agree. [music] It's it is on the edge definitely. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Do I find do I define IBM and deck and WOM and [laughter] JVM and >> Yeah, you are right. like this is also yeah >> I I s the same it's at the same level as JVM and WASM [music] in this document you know >> I I will just leave it as a as a as a general comment then you can decide for yourself if you [music] want to to to um to to define these uh these abbreviations >> there's some there's some I think they're already defined but I'll look

Yeah. Okay. Of course. Okay. And 6 7.

All right. Of course. Yeah. Um, yes. I also have to Sorry there. Yeah, just just as a as a reminder. Um and let's see. Oh, the text are of course failing because of the thing and Okay. Yeah. So, um, and the other suggestion is that um, yeah, I will just note that, but it's also a suggestion. Uh,

What is the sh zero? >> I don't know. >> I think I think it's F. >> Martin was the only person I knew that just knew all of them. [laughter] Let me see because there's also a suggestion. [music] Yep. one ability by code. Yes. Right. And then in lower case. Yeah. Okay.

All right. See that I No, wait. That's not correct. Okay, cool. Let's see this is >> Yeah. Again, Greg's PR with request to some asset related changes. >> All right. Okay. So, so Greg, this about the assets. That's the the the thing I just uh uh explained. [music] So if you upload these assets to your um uh to to this branch then uh it should

be fine. Um okay, usually the assets have taken one more round. So, I'm inclined I'm inclined to leave the direct links out of this one so it can just go in directly and then work on the assets in [music] case I have any problems with those. Um cuz this one stands alone with without the assets. The assets are just the yes to pass the tests.

uh okay. So that makes sense. So uh you want to link to the assets of another EIP >> uh in this EIP at this stage simply name the assets. Don't put in the links which won't resolve um but name them. >> Okay. >> And then put in the EIP or then put in the PR to um to put in the assets. But that means this one is there uh while I hassle with it whatever hassle it takes to get the assets in.

>> I see. >> I'm almost sure to have a hassle. I always have a hassle with [music] you. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean I mean that that that works. So if you address the the the comments and then uh move these assets in later, then uh I think we uh Yeah. This this should be fine. I don't see anything. Yeah, the assets are not the assets don't affect the meaning. They just Yeah, they're just evidence. [music] This is where we got these numbers. I see. I see. Um this is okay. Uh let's see. Because these are the ACD related ones. Um

the other items Puja are the um because you can also maybe move to the chat. Uh >> yes. Yeah. So they were carried over from earlier meeting. It was added in agenda to be reviewed and they mentioned it is ACD related. >> Oh this is >> this is ACD related. Okay. >> Uh yeah not the final one but the other Yeah. Other meta related. Yes. Right. [music] Okay. Let's let's see. Oh, I think I didn't I review this one? No, I didn't. Okay, there's one approval.

>> So, I think I'm done here, right? >> Yes. If you address these uh the review, then uh I I think it it should be fine. Yeah. >> Well, good good luck with that very long list. >> Yes. Thanks. [laughter] >> Very well. Thank you. Okay, let's see [music] because why is this not Okay, that's

All right. Okay. Okay. So, Sam's review this one and the review has been addressed and I also don't see any other problem. So, we'll go um very well. Okay, it looks [music] good to me not attack like I LGTM like I always thought this

that this means looks good to me and then recently I heard that you can also abbreviate it as let's get this merged which I found very >> oh wow yeah >> I I was also super surprised. >> Mhm. Uh well, we are joined by an author who has a bunch of proposal. Um he mentioned that these proposal should be moved to review and I have added it in that section. So if not all, maybe we can take a look at it with whatever time we have left. >> 1853 is the first one. >> Yes, I see. I see.

>> Yeah. Hi there. This is David. [clears throat] >> Hi David. >> Hey. first time joining so relatively new to this whole process. >> Mhm. >> But uh we submitted a family of proposed ERC's >> um did a post on magicians um for the for a meta thread and then individual threads for each of the different proposals. >> And we haven't had on any objections. would like to understand what it would take to move them to review and get encourage more and more comments obviously.

>> Mhm. Yes. Okay. So, welcome. Um I see. Okay. So, you want to move them to review I think. Well, I um so these uh PRs all add ERC's and we cannot well actually I'm not sure. Pa can we can directly merge your C's in review [music] right they should always be draft >> that is correct I'm trying to find out I see that in the update section it is mentioned that on July 9th uh it is into ERC's ERCS ERC/8325MD but I don't see that proposal on website so um maybe if you can explain David

what is there >> what what do you mean you don't see it on on the website. >> So I'm unable to find uh ERC 8325 on eip.ethereum.org. >> Uh but that is this PR right? So so this uh so so these PRs they add new ERC so these ERCs are not yet exist um which is also why they are not on the EIP site. Yeah, we added them. So, obviously they went into draft. We created the discussions.

what do we need to open a new PR to move it to review or what's the I'm not clear on the process. >> So, the question here is has it been merged as draft ever? >> Oh, I don't think so. I'm not sure what that would take. I know all the checks are passing, etc. Who would who merges them? >> Do I merge them? >> So the point here is that when this PR would be merged, it would not be merged as a review status. It would be merged as a draft status.

>> Yeah. And we can like uh discuss it following week to move it into review status. But first this has to be merged as draft. >> Oh okay. And who merges those? >> Yeah. Yeah. If uh Yokam find everything right then this can be merged. Uh but we have to just make sure the status is not mentioned as review it is mentioned as draft. >> No they're all in draft status. >> Yes. So so that's that that need to Yeah. So uh uh editors they uh they review these uh um they have to approve uh ERC's when they change status. So this is a new EIP uh sorry a new ERC. So this changes status from well

non-existent to to a draft ERC. >> This is when an editor checks [music] well and if there are not like very weird things in it and then it gets merged and if you want to move them to review then we do another check. Um yeah that's that that's that's basically the the process. Yes. >> All right. So who do I how do we get them merged as draft? Um well uh so I I I'm checking your this uh this first ESC now and if it is fine I will approve it and then it [music] will get merged that will automatically give you the the merge rights to this specific file. So if you open a PR when this is merged and uh you open changes

to this ESC uh what is it 8325 >> then it will automatically get merged. If you however change the status so you want to move it to review then you get another ping uh from the bot. So you can also see that uh here. So uh it says okay uh requires one more refer from editors and in that case that you change something yourself it will automatically get uh merged and in case someone else opens up PR against your file you will get a ping like okay take a look at this [music] someone wants to change your uh yes >> okay so you'll review these and merge them and then I open a new PR updating the status to draft

updating the status to review >> exactly Yes. >> All right. Great. And I can do that at some point this week and then rejoin next week. >> Uh given that uh I will be I do not think that I will be able to read you all your uh proposals here. [music] Um but yes so um if you open this new PR to move it to review it will get added to uh to the ESC uh review queue. Um but yeah as you can also see on the ESC's G we have a we have a backlog. So this this

can can take can can take some time. David, I have also shared the link of EIP process in chat. Please refer EIP1. It talks about all the statuses and when you can promote them. Yeah, I was familiar with the statuses. I didn't realize that we had to wait for this to be merged. So, that's clear now.

But you landed up in the good meeting. So at least one of the proposals can be reviewed today. >> Yeah, I appreciate it. So puja would the other ones be reviewed

at the next meeting or how does that typically work? >> So I have moved the rest of the PRs to the um draft proposal list. >> Okay. it is there uh for editors to take a look at it asynchronously and if it is not merged or not looked into because of any time constraint then [music] perhaps it will be added to the next um office hour meeting. >> Yeah but the list is long just [music] just to let you know. How is it? Okay. Yeah, I'm sure everyone's busy

like we have very few editors with respect to proposals on the PRs that we receive. So yeah. Okay. Does this meeting also discuss how to get traction on Ethereum magician threads etc or is this limited just to the GitHub side of things? >> Oh no, you are more than welcome to ask for any question if you have with respect to EIP process or PR or yeah that's why we have editor on call.

>> Okay. Yeah, we'd love to find out what's is there any effective mechanisms to kind of drive activity on the threads. We have we've had one comment >> on the Ethereum. >> Yeah. So, you mean to to basically well maybe that's not the right words, but to to promote uh the ERC's, right? And the the the discussion [music] threats. >> Yeah. to drive activity and discussions. >> To be honest, >> if people see issues, we want to iterate on them and review them.

>> Yeah, to be honest, I would actually not know because this would be uh more about like networking. >> Um so I do not know if you have like like a like I for instance do not have like a very big network on Twitter or like whatever. >> But yeah, I I would not know like Pua maybe knows like a very good [music] way to to promote to get like attention like okay this ESC this is like super good please take a look uh I can say that from the the EIP side this is also super hard so um yeah maybe it it is somewhat easier on the ESC side I don't know but yeah I do not have specific uh tips here >> so if I understand correctly because you

have added a bunch of proposals. It may be related to a certain feature or certain group. >> Yeah. Basically around title tokenization. >> Mhm. Yeah. I think in that case the best way is to reach out to that community which may be interested in these kind of a standards to uh then then you may have like smaller groups where this conversation can happen and maybe invite people to add their thoughts directly on fellowship of Ethereum magician that's one way to do it the other way is we recommend people to um uh kind of share the proposal with peep and EIP in which you can go through the proposal talk about its pros and cons why it is

important, why do you think that it should be an Ethereum standards [music] and we shared it with the community. Uh these are a few tips where you can kind of promote your proposal and make people aware that this exist and you are moving forward with uh making them a standard for Ethereum ecosystem. Sorry, where was where would I do the l the latter one that you suggested the community? >> Um that is generally organized by EC institute. Uh we invite people to just join our discord where you can also talk to editors for suggestions. Uh just reach out to me there and I would be happy to direct you further.

>> ECH institute >> let me share the uh discord invite link with you. >> Okay perfect. The Discord link is added in chat now.

>> Ah, fantastic. >> Great. I will join that. And so those how often does that meet? >> Um that has to be scheduled. If you are talking about peep and EIP recording that has to be scheduled but uh on this discord you will find a channel which is called EIP editors channel. Just give me a second. It is EIP editing channel where you can uh talk about the proposal. Check with [music] you know what people think, >> what editors think. If you have any future question, you can reach out to editors directly at EIP editors channel

on this Discord. >> Okay, sure. >> Great. I appreciate the advice. >> You're welcome. Thank you for joining. Jok, you're already on number two. pro progress right yeah just just just for reference that you are not thinking like wow is this uh this person like reading these ESC's [music] at like lightning speed so these these ESCs they are in draft so [music] I I am not checking the contents I am just checking

like okay >> does it not have any any weird things so my approval is also just from from like a stale point or that it sure doesn't have like any [music] weird weird stuff in it >> um so the approvals do not say that I support or I say wow this is like a super good proposal whatever because I did not uh inter interret it's a one >> yeah that makes sense So are these are because it are a lot

there are six uh se which are so it is like a cluster are they are they also are they dependent [music] on each other >> they're not dependent on each other but they can be they can reference each other >> um and they're a family of EIP all focused on improving tidle tokenization >> so be able to verify on chain that the title actually is legitimate and represents the underlying asset. >> So it builds on 3643 and 7943. These can be layered on top.

And we've got a lot more details in the meta thread. on magicians with also an architecture etc. And we've got a reference implementation as well with also a UI um so people can play with that and see graphically how it [clears throat] all fits together. >> Cool. Cool. >> Yeah, we actually went ahead and got all these audited. [snorts] There's a very change audit for them all. Hm.

Okay. But because the quality of these uh documents seem good uh I I have to leave uh soon. So I will not be able to do this now. Um but I will yeah I will [music] do that tonight I think or tomorrow. I will I will check your other uh ESC's and if they are also of the same quality then uh we will also merge them. So for the ne for the next steps if you want to move them to review >> um also um because I'm not sure did you read EIP one?

>> Okay. Great. Then then you know >> I'll follow that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Great. Okay. Awesome. Um but yeah so so for the there are two PRs which are now well this one should now get merged. >> Great. Um but you you can open a PR and the only thing what you do there is you change the status to uh to to to review and then uh well an editor has to go over it again and if if I was fine then uh we we merge that at some point. I cannot get I cannot give any guarantees about the time.

>> Absolutely. >> Y okay that sounds great. Cool. I >> appreciate your help and great to meet everybody. >> Yes. Great to great to meet you. Thanks for having all right, I think we are at at time. I also have to to leave. >> Yes. Uh one final question. Yan. Uh Luke has a question. Um >> yes, >> in the chat >> I see. Okay. uh I think in case like this and a number assignment is it standard procedure to ask for merge preference when there are multiple EPS introduced at the same time and potentially some logical numbering makes

sense [music] okay so um yeah I am not super deep into the uh the numbering process and I'm also not going to claim that this is like super [music] complex but um we have had like EIP number sniping in the past which was not very nice. So uh um you cannot say that you want EIPs or ESC's grouped. Um but yeah I I I I mean I I think that if like this I would assume that these six PRs are opened around uh the same time then >> they they should be sequential and I

think that is uh that is [music] fine. But yeah on the other hand like if someone would uh either snipe [music] a uh PR in between or if there is an editor which assigns numbers and is not uh uh uh sequencing assigning these numbers that you actually get the sequence then there's also no way that yeah then these these numbers would not be sequential. So yeah, it's an own process. As as I mentioned, I'm not super deep into [music] this because mostly uh um now I forgot uh >> ABC.

>> Yeah. ABC and sorry. Yeah. >> And yeah, >> anyways numbers. Yeah. >> Yeah. He does that. But I think Yakam you very well explained it is sequential numbering. So it's not that whether uh there will be any privileges you would be getting. It's based on whenever an editor is looking into it and based on the PR opening the number are assigned. So we don't have to reassign them in this case. >> That makes sense. Uh am I audible? >> Yes, you are. >> Okay. So to to maybe expand a little uh I know that we we moved the the numbering process from being issue number based uh a little while ago and I'm not fully up to date and so just asking for clarification. But uh in cases like this, like let's say there's

there's four of them and in this case there's no clear um because there there might very well be, right? Uh but there's no clear explicit like dependency on [music] each other cuz they don't have numbers yet um in the in the front matter. Um but let's say that the author here had a preference for specifically the ordering of them, [music] right? So like uh document A first and then document B and then document C. Um, just curious if that [music] was something we we thought about because maybe there is a more logical ordering where if these numbers were incremental regardless of what numbers they are and obviously checking for number sniping. Um, but they would make potentially more sense or something. Um, so thought I might

mention that. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. I mean as you mentioned that it would not be getting the PR number of course but there are high chances they may get sequential and in increasing order if they are added together. Makes sense. >> Yeah, Luke, it was actually really we were very pleased to get uh consecutive numbers because the uh these all kind of sit together. So, it's nice to be able to refer to them as a batch. Um so, just some feedback from a from a user.

>> All right, that's great. And I know Yoham has to leave. Thank you so much everyone for joining us here today and yokam for taking out time and reviewing all these proposal. We'll see everyone in the next meeting which would be on next Tuesday at 1600 UTC. Have a great day everyone. >> Thank you. Heat. Heat. >> What's up?