EIP Editing Office Hour #91 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

Heat [music] up here. >> [music] >> Heat up here. [music] Heat. Heat.

press. >> Welcome to EIP editing office hour. This is meeting 91 and uh we can find agenda on Ethereum/PM repo. The number is 1 1957. On agenda, we have one proposal that is waiting to move to final, a few review miscellaneous and a handful of draft proposals from both EIP and ERC's repository. We are joined by editor Yam um to maybe take a look at all these PRs. Uh Yokam, please feel free to share your screen and thank you so much for joining us here.

>> Yes, thanks. You can uh can you see my screen? >> Not the right one. Um maybe yes, you can move. >> Not the right one. Oh, so we had to switch to the [laughter] >> Yeah, we can see it now. Yes. >> Okay, cool. All right. Yeah, this one open. Okay, so this one should go to final. I reacted. Yeah, before this last call deadline, but we should wait for it. Okay, great. Good.

Do some nice still edits. Yeah. Cool. Let's Let's merge it. All right, let's see. This is for a little review once review. Yeah, just to check like uh if we move

it from draft to review, it's just like do we have like any specific requirements for the draft to review? I don't think so. Right. It's just the offer which says move it to the review track. Right. >> Yeah. I mean we do not have any waiting time over here. Just we want that the proposal is more sturdy than it was in draft. >> I see. Okay. So these uh next two are proposal documented by me but actually these

upgrades have happened and I'm just trying to um move through one status to another so it can be finally moved into funnel. >> Okay. Right. Yeah. Um because like it's depth review and then final. >> That's right. No, there is there is last call as well in >> Oh, last call. Yeah, of course. Okay. Yeah, I thought I forgot that. Yeah. Okay, cool. Then uh yeah, I think can you directly move? No, that makes no sense. Okay. Yeah.

>> No, no, we we have to go through every state. Um yeah. Okay. Is this one being flagged by the bot? What was this one? Oh, this one also. Okay. So, I just approved it. But uh the CI is um failing here. >> Okay. In that case, I will take a look at it again and it would require another approval once the CI is cleared. So yes, I will take a look. But if you have any uh like you know if you if you can like maybe take a look at it what is the

error because I have enabled the permission where editors can merge it by themselves. >> I see. Okay. Let's let's need see because what's the problem here? Oh right. This depends on the previous one of course. So if you like rerun, let's see if I rerun this. This one now it should this one gets merged. Okay, it's merged. Let's see how do we do this. I want to rerun this CI.

Um okay, I think I can do this with this trick. >> Yeah, I think I got the problem. Yes, because it was marked with the other. >> Yes, it depends on the previous one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Because this does the auto review. >> I want to rerun this one. >> Yeah. Maybe we can come back to this one after some time and if it does not work if you have the permission to close and open it again, sometimes it re-triggers the bot and it works out, >> right? Yeah. Yeah. So, so the the review retriggers the bot, but it does not retrigger the CI. Um, could you maybe uh

ask Sam for this? >> Yes. If it will not work, then I will ping him. Yes. >> Yeah. But indeed, if I like close it and reopen it, then we will rerun all the CI. So, let's do that. Okay. Let's see. reopen and okay no it doesn't oh it does okay great then I will approve this and then it should get merged after the CI passes because now it should pass all right okay uh yes I had these yeah okay >> we can move on to miscellaneous S1.

>> Yes. All right. Um, so why does this need an editor review? >> No, this is a you as an author review. It's not waiting for editor. >> Okay. But I'm not an author of this. >> Oh, [sighs] my bad. I I think >> let me quickly check it. Like I I thought I noticed this is for like Okay. >> Yeah. No worries. No worries.

>> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Okay. So I think this this um PR uh we are talking about 9251, right? Just to be sure. >> Sorry, which one? >> 9251. 9215. >> Oh, yes. Yes. Sorry the the not the >> so that is waiting on editor's uh review I guess um Gajender Singh had reviewed it back in 2025 and after that this proposal has made some changes and that's why it is added here >> I see okay um okay still.

Yeah, I I'm I'm not really comfortable merging this because I'm not an offer and uh I know that this is like a very old proposal, but I think this should get like an explicit approval from the office and that should not like force much it or something. >> No problem. We can like let it live here. Maybe I will add it to Gajender Singh's review office hour and he can make the decision because he has already reviewed this proposal in the past. >> Yeah. Okay. I think that's a good idea.

Or like uh yeah also yeah maybe not not being all the offers but uh Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Interesting. Yeah. Okay. So I I will not do anything regarding this one. let's see. We want to move this to draft. This also also a very old one and it's an update to move to draft. Okay. All right. Okay. It's from stack to draft. Right. >> So here you have been added as an author. Uh but um yes of course we would want to uh get get your cons consent if uh you think that this proposal should be moved out of stagnant. Yes.

Mhm. Um I am not added as an alpha. So that's not the case. >> What's going on? I don't know why a bot is writing Sam Wilson separately and list of other authors uh separately. That's why it got me confused. >> Ah okay. I I think this is okay. So like uh we have the review. Um so this is the part of the re the offer of the EIP. So the offer the offer has to to uh to say okay we can move it from second to >> Um and I think they also have a policy that uh an EIP editor should allow this.

>> Yes. Yeah. That's because any any proposal that has been moved to stagnant unless there is like uh subsequent changes we would not want to move the status. So it requires author's permission as well as editor's permission. I see. I see. Okay. Um, yeah. This is the maybe more something for the if bot maybe we should add like like a word like requires one more edit or reuse or whatever that is clear. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

>> I think this is a small bug that can be fixed that can also be >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I see that Sam also have like left a lot of comments. So this should be it should first be approved by SAM and then um uh yeah I think no I think that that should be the order like the office should approve it and then the EIP editor should approve it. Would that be the right way to think about this? >> Yeah I I think that makes sense anyway if an editor approves it and an author does not it will not get much. So we can wait for author's approval here.

>> Okay. Okay. Great. And I I actually think because like because it's Sam like if Sam approves it then it's an interesting case actually [laughter] work. Okay. We will see. All right. Yes. Uh this was the same. Yes. See. Yeah. Okay. 772. Also an old one. Let's see because this is also a final

right and yeah there are conflicts. Okay. Oh, it's already my my top suggestion of the EMP. Okay. Um, yeah, this is already final, right? Yeah, this final. Yeah. Um, this one should also get like explicit offer approval >> before we can can merge it. Yeah.

So the next one we have on agenda is uh force merge. I'm not sure if the permission has already been enabled. If not then we can skip the one but please take a look. >> Yeah, I think I can force merge. >> Okay. Let's see what is the problem here. Oh, it's a rename. >> Okay. Um right. What what is like our >> Yeah, everything see >> Yeah, everything is approved but it is not merging. >> Okay. Okay. So, this is already like a still thing because it has to be Oh, wait. Yeah. Yeah. It has to be like EIP.

Okay. Let me just comment on that. What's like what's the status of this one? It's interested. Yeah. Okay. So, so Okay. So this one is not uh so that that's why you requested the force merge I think. So the CI is failing because the the the EMP

validator does not uh approve it and the reason for that is that uh there is this okay my mouse does sometimes not work because of this uh this EIP yeah it doesn't have a dash so that is why it is not uh it doesn't go through the um the uh the validator will not approve this and so the CI does not approve and then it will not get automerged by the Ebot um So we will just leave this review. If uh Kovvin merges this then it should get automerged. Yes. Because if he commits.

Okay. Let's hope so because sometimes uh bot makes editors earlier review or approved uh comment as like stale approval and ask for the second time approval. But let's hope that it gets merged. Yeah, I think Greg is uh the author of this YP, so it it should work. Um if you do this change but if you change this right. Yes. There are a few for typos

and I think here you are the author. The first one for typo. >> Oh, really? Okay. Interesting. So, what is this happening? Oh, it is wrong. >> Yeah. So, so this is like also part of because I did not look into the

notifications yet, but it is like really nice if you um um so you get like all these notifications every time on like new EPS, new ERC's. So like these kind of notifications. So you actually need like an offer approval. Um that should go uh go through. Um yeah. Okay. Let me quickly check what this is. Okay. Typo VR creates.

>> So the next one is also typo but it seems like the author does not want to encourage the typo one. >> Right. Well then >> that's why I have Yeah. That's why I have added it to be closed or deleted. >> Yeah. Yes. Um right. Yeah. So this is so let me check is pro. Yeah offer. Um right.

Yeah I'm I I I'm not like really sure because um No. Yeah, I think Okay. So So PUS will not approve this. Um, all right. And it also says, oh, interesting. This is like a super outdated uh uh proposal also because it was when 7732 was only uh then only boat was an offer. Um, okay. >> Okay. Yes.

So in the next one that is again of ports I know he has not mentioned anything explicitly but looking at the previous one I just have added it here to make a decision. Okay, great. Then for um clarity, I will link to this comment. Wait, it's this one. Okay, copy the link. And maybe Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So this was a comment from like half a year ago. I personally don't think that or prison has like changed his policy. Um but I can also not speak for him. So I don't think that I can do anything >> Both are for the same EIP, >> right? all right what I will do is I will link to this comment composers before and if we like like if this if the this uh this uh committer this PR opener wants

to try it again then um they can submit a new PR. Yeah. >> Let's let me not this. Okay. I think you both. Okay, great.

So here the request is to remove a comment u by a user. It seems like not in English. Uh I'm not sure. >> Oh, so you you you Oh, the link was already to this comment. Yeah, I see. >> Yeah. Okay. This is uh this is spam. So can I delete this? Am I sure if I want to delete this? >> Yeah, I think we can delete the comment. And it is Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think yeah, we we should Yeah, we should not we should talk >> not encourage different language. Let's have it in English. [laughter] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let's have it in English. Yeah, that's a good policy.

Oh, I already closed this one. Great. >> Next, we have a few new proposals um which I think have received the EIP number and they are waiting to be merged. >> All right. the drafts. All right, I remember this one. So it's interesting to to like you can

review like the EPS on like a style level. So the editorial level or like the contents and I did leave some feedback on like the content of this but now I'm like going from the from another perspective. So that's uh that's also interesting. Yeah. Okay. Um

yeah, maybe like one question because um we have like a MISK type of Yeah. So yeah, I think I think this is correct like the category. Um but it has like no changes. It is. Oh wait, let me see what actually because this is invalid ERP, I think. And that is also core, right? Is this core? All right, this core. Okay. Yeah, then um then this one should also be core. Yeah. Okay, great.

Let's merge it. Let's move to the next one. Yeah. So there's like like a very small

thing which I'm not sure if I should raise it because like ECDSA is like a well I think a very well I think most people in this field would know what it is but like an EOA it's like an externally owned account and I'm not sure if you should like like mention this and then abbreviate it. Yeah, I'm not sure. It's it's also like very well known. Okay, that's that's not too good. >> Yeah, I mean that would be a good idea to have it documented as you mentioned earlier like having a wholesome proposal is is good to have.

>> Yeah. To to define it. >> Yeah. Okay. Let's do that. But um yeah, I think yeah, ECDSA we should not No, let's not do that. Okay. Um let's yeah, I think I'm going to do the UA, not the UAS

here. What do you think? Yeah, I'm just thinking like if we are explaining the EUA part then how about ECDSA because you know EA is way more popular than >> the full form of ECDSA. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. So, so yeah, that's that's like like to be honest like I I like ECDSA like I think that most people know that like what at least what it points to, but that's actually also the same for EOAs.

>> And I think that EOS like I would not know what ECDSA actually stands for, but I know what it points to. And for ease because we are in in in like this well this Ethereum world I think that that this is yeah so well known that that maybe maybe not not do this. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'm I'm not convinced anymore. Yeah. >> Yeah. Josh is um uh adding comments like people don't generally elaborate these short forms. ECDSA is always >> shared as like that.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I think I think that makes sense. Like if if the EP somewhat int like if it introduced a new ability, it should of course define it. >> But this is so indeed so well known. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That's that's that sounds good. Yeah. Yeah. because otherwise like we would have to to to uh state all these abbreviations. Yeah, that that would not makes no sense. And the EM Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. Here we have this this one again. Let me see. We have like an EIP which also did this here. Is it this one? Okay. Great. merged. Yes. Nice. We want this. Oh, good.

minute. Yeah. Okay. So, so, so these constants, these are constants from EIP7702, but they are also like defined here. Um, do you think that they should like refer back to the constant value inside EIP7702 or should they like redefine these here?

My understanding is people people generally add the require CIP so they can get the value. But uh documenting the exact same thing right here is also a good idea in my sense because people don't have to go back and forth to like get the value. So it makes sense to keep >> But we just need to make sure that the whatever constant or values are being defined here they h they have the same value. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And of course, S 72 is also final. >> Finally. Yeah. Yeah. There's no chances of changing. So, it makes sense.

>> Uh I do think that we should mention here that these are constants from EIP 772. >> Yeah, that can be mentioned. Of course. tender.

Okay. Right. Okay. Yeah. So, just for everyone watching,

like I'm going somewhat fast over this because I'm now just looking like for some some stale things because it would be insane if I could like uh also review the contents of this this would not be uh TI.

What's this Zip? Is this like some uh not an EIP but Z like CK cache or something? I am not sure if that would be allowed as like a link that can that can be added but because they are not using link >> maybe it will pass the bond >> I don't know if it is a smart way to put it in.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Because Yeah. Okay. It's like they're speculating, but I will assume that. Okay, let's quickly check if we have an EIP, which is 2015, which I don't think we have. No, it's also not an ESC, right? Because then Yeah. Okay. Um, right. Yeah, that's also a good point about um that. Yeah, like referencing. I don't know. Yeah, I I like I think like in in text this is okayish but maybe not not really future proof maybe because like it could also like like like in

maybe five years or maybe I don't know like it could be like okay what what is the CIP okay >> it's a Zcash improvement proposal from Zcash CCash okay yeah so this the EIP process for for Zcash Okay. Um, okay. So, let's see. Is it It's Zcash or ZK cache? No, it is Zcash, I think.

>> Zcash. I put a link in the chat. >> Cool. Cool. All right. Yeah. Or Zcash with a dash. Okay. That's uh Yeah, Zcash. yeah, what what what do you think about this? because I I'm not so sure because we can also like I think it's part of EP1 that we we can link to BI BIP like explicitly link to it >> but

>> yeah I'm not sure if it will be allowed to link ever because that is out of our repository >> um but having just a reference is something that should >> should be fine if it is not using as a part of a spec or something >> notive Yes, please go ahead. >> Having like a a quote in there from the actual Zcash improvement proposal is a better move than trying to link it. So, actually having the content referenced in the EIP if it feels like it's an important thing for it to be there.

>> Yeah. Yeah. This looks like it because it it compares it to to to the CIP uh sort of ZIP um that it is not that yeah >> my understanding is like in the past I have seen that this kind of comparison or mention is generally asked to be removed from the proposal if it is not very important to be kept in as Josh mentioned that it would be a good idea to add the text or the content directly rather than referring it to or comparing it to something that does not belong to this repository. It will create confusion.

>> Yeah. Okay. That's that's a good point. Not link code. Not not link. All right. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Okay. Yeah. Let's do this. Okay. Let's first check. Is there is there like something in the chat or someone else who wants to focus on something different otherwise I will just move on to the next one which this one >> no I think there is just one suggestion here in the chat um >> is it CP move to the summarize the C yeah yeah okay so so this is I I think yeah this is what I meant with the comments Um yeah, maybe I should see

what is it. similar to CF. Yes. Okay. Let's move to this one.

All right. Okay. I see this is like this kind of document. Okay. Okay. Um like so this this is an EP of type informational. Um the other type is core right? Do we have like more types? >> We have meta >> meta. Yeah we have three meta standard tracks andformational. >> Yeah yeah yeah and and core type right or standard track. Yeah, I'm trying to understand like why static control flow of the EVM would beformational.

>> Yeah. Okay. So, so this is what I was looking at like this is uh so this I I would you would first think of the title like this is a proposal for the EVM. So I think I will mention that because this does not do likeform information with an actual proposal to do something but this is this provides like historical context uh and like uh well this is what I I'm assuming now like uh to put it into context like um anformational document and I think that's what I would assume that Greg wants to uh to to to refer to this AIP like okay take a look here to not put this contextual information inside an EIP which has to do with this because otherwise this EIP will look

like super big and that is like super daunting for people to read. That's that's what I will assume. >> Yeah, that's this this looks really like information. Yes. Okay, let's now go to >> But I'm but I'm just uh thinking it out loud like um if this is valid in today's context like this is how it works. I don't I can't I may not be able to understand the entire proposal but just curiosity if it makes sense to have it right now documented atformational because people will make sense of it or is it just because this was something that was there in the past and that's the motivation of documenting this.

>> Okay, that's a good question. So if I understand uh currently we are not like having EVM proposals asformational either it has to go as core or not included at all because of so much changes. Yes. >> Um and and so another thing because I I like due to the like how this EIP is built up uh I have bred this or at least like these sections before. So this was or is part of uh another EIP checker because it's also let's see at least um and uh I I think like would it make

sense because if uh this is indeed um like some information not some but anformational document should this then go into assets maybe in the assets folder of an uh asset would only uh contain I think u artifacts that we are trying to add images and explain aer diagram kind of thing. I think it was this. No.

>> Maybe we should focus more on motivation side. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um so let's see what what what what do we hear? because um let's do not yeah so so I I'm I'm thinking because these kind offormational EIPs I I I don't think I don't know it it feels like yeah do do we want this I don't know >> do we have motivation added I mean I can see abstract directly do we have motivation for this proposal alled >> uh

>> because that would give give us a lot of context. Why do we want to document this as a standard or even as anformational proposal? >> Yes. Yes. And and then also the question like forformational documents do we need a motivation section? >> Yeah. I think we generally put it on all of the proposals. It's part of basic template. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Maybe it already says it here. Okay. I think >> another thing that is kind of taking my attention right here is the bottom part of it view. So when we go to the bottom of the proposal, it lists about a lot of things. Uh I I don't know the format

does not seem to be uh I'm looking at the view preview uh format. So yes uh references a lot of references are mentioned here. I have my doubts that this would be allowed inside. We generally put a copyright thing and that's all about it. We do not add lot of outside reference links. So I see a lot of work in this proposal to be merged as draft. I mean that's personally what I think about it. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Um, >> right where are these?

Where else? >> Where is it? >> While these references make sense to me if we want to like um give attribution in a right way but I have not seen any proposal keeping all these information in the Ethereum repository so far. Right. Okay. Just check. I'm confused because where do where do these URLs come from?

>> Yeah, the references section. Yes. >> Yes. But but but but it it sort of inserts like URLs here but but what is it? >> Ah yeah. >> Yeah it I mean it actually is clickable but I don't see where in this document it actually links to that URL. Oh >> I think I can see it there. like um it's the first one is there with historical context where he's written 1842.

>> So there is a small one there in the historical context. Similarly automatic computing engine number two. >> Oh right. Okay. So is this >> Aha. Yeah. I see. I see. Okay. Um yeah. Okay. But what I will do is like a general comments that um put it Yeah, because like I'm thinking like do

we want this as an EIP? Or should this like be an asset where the where an EP links to? Because >> this might this this so this like this historical context document feels like very heavy as an EIP if that makes sense. >> But for asset there has to be a proposal then only we can add it to a set folder. It's always linked to a particular proposal. >> Yeah. Okay. That's right. Okay. I think the the the points I'm not sure if I can finish this now. Um because the points we want a motivation and this there's like this copyright problem. So if you will just put two comments on here and then also mention that I did not review all of this.

>> Yeah, that's all right. I would just note that like in all of theformational EIPs that exist which are about 10 to 15 nothing in there looks like historical information. Uh to me this looks like it should be just a separate thing altogether and should not live in the EIP repository. Should be like its own hackmd or blog post or something like that. >> Yeah. I mean if we want to document uh um any historical information that should be directly related to Ethereum for example um I mean I'm working in I'm working for a proposal that is documenting Ethereum upgrade naming

process but that has a direct relationship uh with the present Ethereum structure. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I see a lot of work if this has to go as an EIP but I would uh plus one to Josh's point that it could be a better hackmack empty post or like an alternative like let's see what what do we have buff post side post contextual sites maybe.

>> Yeah. I mean this could have been clarified with adding motivation like why you really want to have it as a standard in Ethereum. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. And let's see and these uh references because this was like um yeah I can just flag this because these kind of references like these are not links but this will not be allowed by the EIP bot. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's it's not with link but without link it may not make uh to >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I feel somewhat bad about like leaving like a partial review. Um, okay. Yes. Let's do All right, >> and that's pretty much we can cover today.

>> Yes, >> thank you so much for taking our time and reviewing all these proposals and we would look forward to have next office hour to address PRs which could not be looked into this meeting. >> Thank you everyone. Have a good rest of the day. >> Thank you. Heat.