EIP Editing Office Hour #107 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

[music] >> Thank you.

Welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting number 107. This is a added to ethereum/pm GitHub repository. The issue number is 2160. >> [music] >> On agenda, we have first few PRs which are related to ACD calls. Would like to take a look at it. Some related to upcoming upgrade glance that I'm followed by miscellaneous and then there are all these proposals which are waiting to be moved from one status to another.

We are joined by editor Sam Wilson. So >> Let's start it. All right. Interesting. Okay, so that's fine. Let's see. Okay. So, do we have >> Quick question here, Sam. It seems like

this PR is trying to address two of the things. One is making change to one and another one is making [music] changes to H2 H2. >> Okay, so let's see the PR traces two request types there. Both contracts follow the request was pattern privilege long run both of that. Yep, okay. Choose this privilege as a separate staking intentions there after.

Privilege registered by ability to get types make the actor explicit from the request type alone. Uh build this deposit proof session is verified and then when the deposit is processed I'll make a validator's deposit. Cool, that's fine. And then [music] moving that. What you venture the path that down?

And but pretty bad calling calling it a lounge. >> Okay. This all looks good.

>> [gasps] >> Good good good. How does feel I said?

>> Okay. >> Okay, cool. So that one's done. Moving

on to the next one for ACD. That one there. >> For this one we are joined Greg in case you have >> Yeah, hopefully this will I I assume this will be nice and quick. I don't think this will be >> And the vice versa to you Greg in case you have any question on the PR of for review because it is already reviewed by Sam earlier, please feel free to share it here. I'm trying to merge.

Uh relation to the control plane, relation to the scaling road map. Super share group project deck for sales enablement. So, let's go and see

the references down here. That all looks good. Actually, let's take the resolver here.

Neat. Okay. Do all archives ones just get their own DOI? Just curious about that, cuz that makes things much simpler if they do. >> Yes, that all looks fine.

And now we look at this one. EIP-337, validated EVM code. Is this a new proposal? I thought there already was an EIP-337. But I guess not. Okay. >> Maybe you are remembering 4337. >> No, there were like a a a I thought you had a a number for this proposal already, but perhaps I am incorrect. >> Okay. Because it very much resonates to 4337, you know, 8337.

>> Yeah. >> By the way, I did a quick uh AI search on DOI. It seems like not every archive assigns its own DOIs, but some [music] mission may have unique identifier. >> Is that the one I'm thinking of? 7979 >> Yeah, that is there for Glam Saddam. >> Okay, yes, it's just call it return and then this is Okay, that makes sense. Now, code can be prefixed with magic bytes. Code magic code is validated up to >> Now I definitely remember reading

something like this. >> Oh yes, I think Greg added that in the comment that he has closed the accidental duplicate and here is the key. >> Ah, okay.

>> That makes sense. Okay. >> And magic bytes. Obviously has magic

bytes coping with magic bytes must be a valid program. Execution begins immediately after magic bytes. Uh, so it's determined. So, A valid code is for static control flow

or transfer control lines where the code says done. Okay. More specification. Um, Uh, da da da da da. Destination for jump and call. Da da da. >> So, let's go to

here. And let's go here. Here. And that'd be forks, Amsterdam, BM. And that goes So, we're looking at Yeah, I guess we can't really find a single place that links to that. Um addition person last three

for the code as ever run [music] in back track. First three remain runtime matters. >> And whether that goes I guess not knowable from the code, neither is the gas. >> That is shouldn't consider another coach control flow and stack up to understand competition stuck to that.

Must be that up government must have been defined in that paper to play EIP. Yeah, I guess. Um, every reachable jump and jump I must immediately be must be immediately preceded by a push using immediate value as a destination. This must be a jump destination called this. So, is called this defined in this one? No. Where did that go?

>> Oh, that's pretty reasonable. Nice. So, do we have any authors on here who have proposals that they want reviewed? Cuz we can do that now. >> do and there is a question first of all. So, I would like to invite David with his question. I believe he has five to seven [music] PRs. Uh but David, if you can go ahead with the question first and then we'll look into PR with. >> Yeah, hey Sam. Uh this is David. You helped me originally >> [clears throat] >> when we were onboarding here.

Um if you look at the ERC repo, I put an issue in there. We tried to move our ERCs to review and we realized that some of the prior art was referencing links that were in review. Oh, sorry. They were in draft. And [clears throat] so, we wondered the best way to get around that. What I ended up doing was just referring to the prior art by name. >> So, >> Is that recommended or >> So, you have two options. You can either um move the like get the authors of the prior art to advance their uh proposals

or move them into um withdrawn. Um that's difficult if you don't have any connections to the other authors and the other option is to just not mention it at all and not have prior art and the reason why we have this rule is because it's entire like let's say your proposal is final and it exists you know people are using it but it links to say a draft EIP. That draft could be completely rewritten to a an entirely different proposal and then it wouldn't make any wouldn't make any sense to link to it anymore. So we kind of ensure that if your proposal is final then everything it depends on is also final.

>> Okay. All right, that makes sense. >> So if you want to just change it to a general prior art and not mention anything specifically that works. >> Yeah, that's basically what we do. We referenced it by name which you'll see in the the links. >> So then the family of PRs that you see

they were just requesting that they move to review. >> Yeah, there are a lot of PRs assigned but I think we should pay attention to a couple of others which can be quicker. For example, there are two PRs that I have added just in the chat. One is with respect to an auto stagnant bot. Uh PR [music] it seems like ERC Depot stagnant bot is not working and cyber sentry added a PR to fix that and he also has a PR to move it into final status.

>> Oh, perfect. Okay. So, you said he has a PR to move it into final. >> Yeah, there are two PRs. One is for auto stagnant and one to move it to final. The final one is 1867. >> So, this is to Yeah, auto stagnant bot. >> So, it's 1867. >> All right. >> Okay. Let's do this one here.

>> Maybe I can give some background here. There were some issues which was also discussed in the EAB editors channel. The problem was there are mentioned there were mention of PR EABs which were not in the review status even. And this proposal is moving to final, so the author made some adjustments. Yeah. Cyber sentry, if you have to add anything, please feel free. >> Yeah, thanks Pooja. I saw It was on this one that we removed 8004 from the requirements. >> Yocum picked up that I'd left some reference.

>> So, I've totally removed all them now. >> Perfect. Okay. So, I think this is probably fine. Let me just go through it quickly here. do do do >> Yeah, looks good.

>> Next is one more EIP that is moving into final status. [music] Seems like it's last call period has ended. >> Sure. Uh, this 8196 or >> Oh, that is done. Last one. Yeah, last one. Yes. Now, actually that should probably check this. I doubt that there's going to be any problems, but you know. It's not a problem, but there is something that we might want to consider at some point.

Uh, I don't know Cyber Centry if it is still there. There was a reference of another EIP which was moved into final status. Is the reference still there in this EIP? >> No, it's it's all been removed. It was based It was based mainly on um, 8004. but yeah, all them references have now been removed. >> Okay, cool. Yeah, that helps. Yeah, because we ended up in this problem earlier for two years, but yeah, cool. >> Okay, yeah, there's no changes since the last time this was edited, so I can just approve this.

There we go. >> Cool. And the next is one PR to the last call status. >> Sure. Okay, this API [music] procedure face

for non-transfer multi-document. This is in the title somewhere [music] now. Okay. Okay, then >> [snorts] >> it's configuration to many recipients in transaction. 160 is this one, okay. Okay, looks good.

Yeah, that looks great. >> So for the next one, there is one PR which is being like pending for past three, maybe take a look at it. The PR number one. >> You said there was a question about this one or >> Yes, it's on the agenda. If you can maybe 1832. Oh, yes, I'm mixing two things.

Yeah, take a look at it. >> Yes, none of that trying to just not make sense. I believe that was here. We could take this.

Go back. Going to draft. Really doesn't matter too much. Really doesn't matter too much. Go for it. >> I see your approval. I see your approval. It has already been approved by Well, it has already been approved by Yoham, but it seems like it will require it again.

Okay. So, Okay. So, go and get that. Yeah, so go and get that. Go and get that. >> to review. You want to review.

Sorry, David for the long wait. >> No, I'm good. >> Sorry, David for the long wait. They should [clears throat] They should be fairly quick, I think. >> Okay. Are these all yours? Yeah, okay. Cool. So, in the interest of just speeding through these, let's see how many changes. So, prior art. Okay, yeah, so >> Okay, that's

>> Yeah, these all just be similar. Makes sense. >> So, would you like me to go in and just edit those? Or Okay, perfect. Excellent, thank you.

>> Oh, no problem. >> Good question from a We move to last call. How does that work typically? it's entirely author-driven. So, if you wanted to move them into last call tomorrow, you could. >> Um but ideally, what you'd want to do is go and find someone else who'd be interested in implementing [music] or or interfacing with your proposals in some way. >> Yep. >> And getting their feedback on it. And then once, you know, two independent [music] parties have kind of coordinated on and agreed on it, then you move it to last call. But again, you don't have to do that. It's just recommended. So, um whenever you're ready.

>> Great. That's helpful. Thank you. >> No problem. >> The next we are joined by Tom and me and me, I guess. Uh he has PR number 1849 moving into draft. >> 1849 >> Tom or Yeah, I I don't see him on the call. Maybe his internet is choppy. He just messaged me that his internet is choppy and may be able to miss the >> call.

>> Uh who signed that? Was that a sign by perfect? Uh right here. We should have signed version of all the claims with ISO checks and funds. Okay. >> So. >> Okay,

have claims. [music] Interfaces 165, price 165. That sure is some solidity. Uh [snorts] stream trail. >> All right, cool.

Can you hear me? >> Oh, yeah. I think Sam has finished the review of your proposal. >> Okay, thank you, Sam. Sorry, my internet was so bad, so that's why I hotspot. >> No, no worries. >> Um yeah, it looks good so far. Um I think um just add a little bit of text explaining uh like why you need an EIP or an ERC, rather, for this registry. Um and then I think think it should be good.

Um I I assume that's probably obvious. It's just not to me. So, cool. we have 8 minutes left. I don't think I'm going to start another, um, proposal today. Uh, if anybody else has any questions, oh, go ahead. >> Yeah, Sam, if I if I may request, there are two PRs which are, I think, requiring nice to the bot on the glance that I'm EIP promoted to review. They have received approval, but it's not merged. So, if you can really quickly take a look. >> Sure, yeah.

>> And anyone else, if you have any question, please drop it down. >> Okay, so what's going on here? Do you need to be What's going on? So, we go into here and then here.

So, let's say 7 708 [music] saying has the wrong status. So, this might be 708. This review already. [music] >> Do you think it requires rebasing? >> That's what I'm guessing. I'm just going to double check. Uh, eight.

Yeah, that's that's exactly what it is. It needs to be rebased. >> Okay, so will it will it >> automatically merge? >> Uh, yeah. I'm pretty sure it'll just merge because there's already an approval on it, so should be good. >> All right. Sure. Is it the case with the next one as well? Then in that case, I'll go ahead and rebase it. If you can quickly maybe take a look. >> Yeah, of course. Yeah, same thing.

>> Cool. We'll do that. Uh well, thank you, Sam. Thank you, everyone for joining. I know we could not take the rest of the PRs. There were a lot to take care of, but I hope some of them would be addressed async. Thank you, everyone for joining and hope to see you next Tuesday at 1600 UTC. >> Take care, everyone. >> Mhm.