EIP Editing Office Hour #32

Transcript

welcome to EAP editing office our meeting number 32 um this is issue number 311 on E cathod GitHub and we are joined by Sam Wilson the AP editor who will go ahead and do the reviews here and also joined by few authors so let me quickly start with the first item and uh the number is pr1 157 um and we have Joey on the call for that so you said ERC 157 PR number7 in ERC Depo in ERC okay all right did you have any specific

questions Joey or just uh wanted to look at it yeah mostly just a look um it looks like you started adding comments which I missed so I'll um I'll take a look at those but yeah this one is just going to draft okay yeah okay yeah I think I had finished reviewing this one but there wasn't anything super notable about it um I if there was nothing notable about it

I can go to a address the those couple comments you made and then um maybe towards the end of the call we can merge it in yeah yeah that'll work so there is another PR that is another PR by Joy um it's about a last call proposal perhaps we can take a quick look at that and that is PR number 247 247 yes so I think just um super minor stuff clean that up so you said 247 y all right let's take a look at this one

oh this isn't the one I approved yet yesterday token response yeah there was two last calls thanks for looking at that other one too oh no worries I just just missed this one [Music] and there okay

all right so this is looking good everything's in order now it's [Music] good if we need to change the date you can go ahead and just change it and I can approve a suggestion or you can just um change it yeah because I think it's just inside two weeks yeah oh I can edit this one okay good um so the reference implementation section is optional so you can just remove that um unless you wanted to add one

but no need for this yeah this looks fine and then uh so be looking at the fifth all right perfect yeah this can go in all right so that's that the next one here is a PR number 209 and we are joined by Tina for this hello hello did you have any specific questions for this or 209

that's right okay oh yeah uh yeah we we fix the the comments okay perfect I'll take a look thanks yeah okay let's give this a read through all right so verifiable a generated content token ver nice okay

BS verify functions new mint Bend new rable good nice abstract and the verifiable and produce the existing USC 721 to% to accommodate the unique requirements of AI generated content nfts STS B to collection the standard provides interfaces to use zkl or opml good to verify whether not aigc certain you can put a prompt interface for okay good types proofs okay nice model owners publisher need you conclud input promt publisher model approving

circuit okay okay yeah that's perfect that's that's a really nice um use case here and I think this workflow is great too so um 77 so I would make so the the convention we have here when you're talking about yourself is to just say um oh okay yeah yeah it's not um you

just say this proposal instead of the um the EIP number um yeah okay so super super minor though um okay workflow okay diagram here okay interface Prov good yeah that looks good okay um and so similarly

here okay fire contract okay the 2165 interes that's correct 165 and 721 165 72 good good okay interfaces mint and mint event defens verify good good okay specification token to the the

corresponding determin way to associate the tokens with content generation parameters seems good two proof types good verify interface Okay so back

yes this is mostly just like um if you're trying to create a requirement like you want to specify something about implementations it should be in the specification section uh but if you're just explaining something uh you just use the lower case version oh okay okay okay interfac but yeah that goes for all of the sections not not just here apply that for the rest of the document uh give me CP before finalization the consideration here is that limited by the single models test and practice

approve for the next exceptable time frame on the other hand okay oh okay okay yeah yeah okay um ref implementation includes

impation okay good just fr let secure time okay that's perfect in the opl scenario

right good MIT is fine perfect T good okay good yeah that all looks great yeah so just some really minor comments and then this should be good to um to merge oh okay so uh so after merge it will be moved to review and and what's the next step for uh like next step sure so um the the process is very um author

driven so uh when you're ready you can open a PO request to move it to last call um the idea behind the review stage is to give the broader Community an opportunity to comment on and uh kind of like assess whether they want to use your proposal so it' be a good time to reach out to the people you think who'd be using this so uh since this is nft related I might suggest reaching out to the nft working group or to um for example like the openc Discord um and you might be able to get some good feedback from from those kind of people um if you like I can drop a link um in your poort request after oh okay thank you so if um if we finish the the like

comments just then we can it can merge sure yeah can I update okay okay thank you yeah no problem well the next one is PR number 238 actually it is an update to existing ERC in draft which is 7425 I wonder why it did not merch automatically I see author on the proposal has made the changes and the author has also joined his name is Jim hey Jim let's see why this isn't merging okay 7425 is linking to okay I see

yeah so um I think you have to use EIP here let me double check po up one here that's passing

yeah so they have to use EIP and not ERC so that's that's the only change you have to make here think I can probably do this for you um so this I do this is there find and replace in here no all right yeah contrl F we let do find and replace oh well thank you yes yeah so that should hopefully fix it and we shall see

yeah okay so we'll let that run and um I'll keep this open and make sure it merges for you all right thanks problem sorry about um it not working smoothly okay uh I did have a question I'm not ready I'm not ready for it to go to review just yet um and it's almost been six months would it still turn to stagnant or will it still stay uh even if it goes to stagnant that's fine um it doesn't really mean anything and you can always take it out of stagnant whenever you're ready to keep working on it but like this will reset the timer having this um this commit here so okay you'll have another six months yeah but Stant is more just like an organizational thing um it's not bad okay all right

thanks no problem yeah we can perhaps add a small note over here so if proposal moves to stagnant generally people assume that author is not around to move it forward it may not help in like making this understanding that proposal is not ready yet so if you want to move it um uh and uh yeah it would be nice to make changes and keep it in draft status rather than mov to State all right all right very well moving ahead we have a bunch of uh um proposals requested for uh review in the comment most of them are from the draft section so Sam if you

would like to maybe first look into the review proposals and then we can move into the draft one that be definitely do that so keep this one open and these ones here all right so this is Peter yeah I think I was looking at this one earlier today actually I think it's it's fine yeah okay this one's definitely fine wait did my own request end up in

here that's funny yeah I have added that I mean I was confused with the pr number because one is 8224 and other one is 8244 but realiz both are different proposals that's funny yeah so this one's more of a suggestion for uh Panda and Victor so um do you want it to be discussed in the eapap meeting before we no no no this is just just a um like there's there's nothing special about this one so okay perfect yeah uh so what is this mot review okay is this all yeah

okay 7620 basically 7620 is a new draft and that is also requested by the euf team for getting yes we'll have to do seven yeah we can't do this one until 7620 is in review so that's just going to have to sit here for a while so 7620 have added for today's uh agenda for draft yeah we can take a

look okay would you think adding a small note here is like a re yeah okay create three create four return

contract instruction that's a nice description that is a really long requires list okay IMM object format removes the possibility to create contracts using creation transactions with an empty2 field create create two instructions introduce three new instructions create three four transaction type code transaction okay cool CIP uses terminology from perfect 3540 is in good you you code observability create transactions okay sub containers the new instructions and the new transaction tag okay

cool okay so we won't say Max code size actually let's

do this one source ethereum London VM so e

okay okay we introduce three new instructions with the same block number activated on create for okay transaction types introduced transaction 159 type two transaction so9 yep good okay the codes okay be access VI the create 4 function okay standardized creat contract FES to have okay the Creator contact

regular State change y SC okay okay extended by the sum of M those items costs okay

if there more than codes okay under transaction validation rules and cod validated okay next to contracts okay in E evbm new by code is Del in a special field okay good it's fine it's all fine

okay good okay good and there the last one down here Okay cool

so I actually think that is awesome so I think that one is done um thank you going to have to end a little early today I think we're going out for lunch so um probably do one more and then take off so what would you recommend Pua uh so another one that I think we could perhaps take a quick look

is a p number 7819 that is on EIP side this proposal was in review but is being moved back to draft okay I mean any recommendation for these people I understand if they are moving back to draft that means the proposal is not completely ready for review yeah yet yeah that's fine

see okay in okay okay cently swap new instructions good well it's going back to draft so I don't need to worry too too much about this yeah that's why I thought we can quickly take a look at it

yeah yeah that seems fine I'll approve it um Sam I also uh I applied your suggestions on pr1 157 if you get a chance to merge that too yeah I can I can do that those was on erc's right yeah

yeah I mean that's it's perfect all right cool thanks uh Sam uh we were joined by another author but as I understand we may not have enough time to take all the proposals PR reviewed here in this meeting so I guess we have did you have any specific questions or I don't mind uh saying a bit longer L uh please share if you have any specific question with respect to to your proposals I'm not sure if you are on mute L I'm just sharing your list of

proposals here but if you have any specific question with any of these proposals feel free to ask otherwise um maybe Sam can take a quick look uh whenever he gets an opportunity I can tell you right off the bat you have a very good title and description umil security exchange messages on chain publication alms their addresses oh this is cool so this is uh something pretty close to my um my heart I guess I've been talking

about uh getting a pgp kind of key registry on Shain for a little while um although I'm not a cryptographer so I'm not particularly well suited to designing it so I'm glad somebody else is is looking at it too that's awesome um trck you

m nice yeah no that actually seems great I'm happy to approve this pretty much right off the bat but that is all I have time for today thank you so much for for coming and asking questions and hopefully I can get to some more proposals uh soon um take care everybody thank you thank you everyone for joining today