EIP Editing Office Hour #112 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

[music] Heat. >> [music] >> What's up?

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

>> Heat. Heat. >> progress.

Thank you. Welcome to EIP editing office hour. This is meeting number 112. You can find the agenda on ETM/PM GitHub repository with issue number 2202. Today we are joined by editor Sam Wilson. We have made some changes to this office hour and those changes are added as a note for authors. We would love to use this office hour specifically to address questions, concerns which are related to process or in terms of documentation of an EIP. So if you have any of these questions, concerns, you are welcome to join the meeting. You are otherwise welcome as well to go over the review process. Um I would like to invite uh Sam and maybe we

can go ahead with uh uh the issues the agenda item issues um address it one by one unless we have any specific question from any of the authors who joined in the room. >> Okay. >> Sure. So we can start with Mark here. So that's ERC 809. Um let's go take a look at that. So that is still in PR. >> Hello.

Um let's go and see. So, uh, right now it looks like this is just waiting for a review a reviewer to get back to us. Um, so, uh, nothing for you to do here except wait. Um, you can see our review queue on EIP insights. Um, and we'll get to that when we can.

>> Okay. Is there like any perhaps like direct feedback for example perhaps any suggestions on how it's possible to attract more attention to it or your opinion on the U standard itself like any insight that you would usually consider um you know uh useful for [music] ERC authors? >> Yeah. Um, so we don't really have like a bank of reviewers that that handle technical content. Um, unfortunately we kind of leave that up to authors to to reach out to people that they would find interested in their proposal. Um, and

then uh when you're satisfied with the review you've received um then you can advance to the next proposal or the the the next status rather. Um so yeah we don't really have anybody around. Sorry it's not really a satisfying answer but yeah >> so look um we had a meeting with various um companies big companies in the industry. For example we held a meeting with Tracer on this topic as well. And um so if we receive like uh public feedback from various companies um is it going to help uh expedite this [music]

ERC? >> Um I mean [snorts] so it will help your proposal be of higher quality but unfortunately there's just such a long backlog of these proposals uh and so few of us editors reviewing them that it just takes us forever to get through them. Got it. I appreciate the answer. >> Yeah, sorry about that. >> Yeah, no worries. >> And if I may, >> if I may add um um something here, it would be really a good idea if you can have all those people's comments, suggestion or whatever they're feeling it towards this EIP added to Fellowship of Ethereum Magician. that definitely

gives us a perspective to see the interest in the community about this proposal getting accepted as an standard. So you can um invite them to add uh their comments and as we proceed through the proposal it might get attention. The key point to have everything listed is fellowship of Ethereum magician link that you may have already added in the EIP [music] draft. >> Okay. Thank you. With that we can move on to the next one. Sam the first one on ACD related is PR which seems to be all good from authors and just waiting on editors approval.

Okay, don't care about test vectors. Let's take a look at the proposal. So, pre-ompiles for MLDDSA verification. Three pre-ompiles for verifying MLDDSA signatures from a concatenated public key signature and drag message. Okay, cool. Then verify module lattice based digital signal algorithm. FIPS security levels blah blah blah parameter sets and then FIPS is referenced somewhere down here. Cool. It actually has a proper citation. That's awesome. Uh course par blah blah blah. Each pre-ompile takes a public key public key

and signature of fixed length defined by the parameter set. So the message is exactly the trailing bytes. Each prinkle flower returns a 32 by left at a word one on a valid signature and zero otherwise. All right. So 851 And

very likes message. So fix.

Yeah. Okay. Good. Define sign verification over message of any length. Okay, cool. It's good. Three addresses added. Neat. [snorts] Public keys use standard compressed encoding. Signature encoding. Neat. 12

down. And just when no code succeeds, it returns nothing. The cost of train. This is one word of

memory and the last of failure. [sighs] Okay. I just like that.

Hey, test cases. Uh, cool. It's all written well. Yeah, that looks great. Give me one second.

>> Sure. So in the meantime again a reminder for new EIP reviews it can be done on this call if they are in the right stage of the pipeline otherwise it can be taken care asynchronously but for authors who have joined the call. If you have any questions beyond just simple review please drop it in the chat and the editor will try to respond to it. Sorry about that. I am back.

>> Very well. >> Moving on. >> So the next few uh PRs uh I believe they should be closed right now. If you could maybe take a look at it. Uh the reason for closing is either they have already been added to the meta e from a different PR or commit. Uh so I have listed the number and some of them are uh typo related and the author is not uh willing to accept those PR. Yeah. >> Um so before we move on to that I think we are >> okay >> have a question from an author here. Uh so what are we waiting on here? Waiting on author. So

uh to get um a proposal merged or PR merged, you need to have an approval by one of the existing authors. So you'll need to uh get in contact with these people and um get them to approve your um change here. Uh the alternative if you can't get a hold of any of them is to um duplicate the proposal under a new number. Uh so uh you would just take the text you have here um open a new poll request um without an EIP number and um you can continue on from there. Uh hopefully that answers your question.

>> Yeah, sorry that answer I'll get an approval from Tony. Thank you. >> Awesome. Okay, what's going on here? >> So, this is already added to Meta E and it seems to be a duplicate V. I assume this one's already been added

as well. Same. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay, cool. So most of them are outdated. Um yeah, they have already been addressed. Yeah, this one doesn't conflict though. That's weird. That was I don't know if This is the actual

reason but because they have already been added to the current meta they are getting the conflict >> on the PS which have not been closed. >> Yeah. So get rid of those. >> Oh yeah. We can also take a look at some other spans if you would want to address them quickly. They are also supposed to.

>> Yeah, sure. Can do. I can't delete issues anymore. That's infuriating. Wait, I can transfer the issue, but I can't. That's so strange.

Uh, did this person open anything Yes. >> Generally this is very interesting way to looking at it because if there is one spam there would be more. They uh Huh. Weird. That's very annoying.

>> so there is one more status update change. Sam, sorry. No worries. >> That there is one moving into last call which we can address quickly. Uh >> number four. Yes. can do. I think that's close enough to okay merge dispatch call there's people good and this proposal standardized dispatch proxies which dispatch calls to logic modules call delegates according to function selector

Cool Um, That's a good point. Sam, do you think

it is something that can be noted somewhere? Maybe even in the um contributing in not MD that we can >> Yeah, we could we could Yeah, there should be an EFW rule for it um soon if not already. point. Yeah. Anyways, there should there should be a EW lint for it eventually. So um >> the first is proxy storage super class

storage name space. Yeah I mean this is fine. Um [snorts] into last call you go >> very well. So now we have blocks of uh you know categories. [music] We can go into each one of them and we can look into as They have been received [music] in order of duty. Yeah, this one is I think second or third review. >> Yeah, I still need to go through this one.

Okay. [sighs] yeah, I guess we can clear some typo fixes. Typo. This one now this is just GitHub being terrible. By the look of the number it seems like it is fairly recent proposal. I don't know why Eidbot has not added any of the

author here. It could have been >> uh so the authors were added. Um there was just an approve. It's just uh the uh the checks didn't actually run so it never merged. >> Yeah. So that should go in on its own. Yeah. Okay. So, we did the spam.

Okay. So, I guess we can go and look into uh just the oldest ERC's and we can maybe start clearing some of those out. >> Is it EPS insight? Yeah. Okay. >> That's there in the status link. You can directly go there and they have also created a specific section on EIP inside on the left side. Yeah, it will directly take you there. Yeah. Editing office hour is the special section there you can find everything overview board call meetings. Oh, nice will be there.

>> Cool. Yeah. So, [snorts] we will go through and look at Oh, wait. This is 17 [music] weeks. There's got to be older ones than that, isn't there? >> I think they're sorted. I mean like based on the weight. >> Yeah, but I know I know there are older ones than that unless somebody's gone through and um >> yeah, >> that's pretty much it. So the segregation here is like you know if there is any uh possibility of getting it dependent on author they should not be shown here. It's only if authors is cleared and it is waiting on editor. So, let's look at the oldest.

Um, so let's say we look at I don't know this one. So, I left a change on here and then Yeah, I guess no. Okay, sure. We'll just go with this. So 961. Okay, cool. So I think they've actually made some changes. Let's take a look.

All right. So 70905 minimal sovereign bridge token ventual representation bridge across domains. Cool. This defense minimal extension to ERC 20 efficiently called minimal XRC20 that was bridging across domains without creating multiple infible representations for the same underlying asset. Cool. Good. So did this get merged? Still proofing.

Add key transfer with authorization defy transfer authorization scheme [music] using a blah that mirrors. Yep. Hey,

those are some type hashes. 98 Start.

Hey, Mr. Except Cool.

Awesome. I think I'm going to wrap up here for today. Um, I think this format worked fairly well. Um, I feel a lot more fair reviewing older proposals. Um, >> yeah, I guess we'll uh Yeah right. So Sam before you close for that hour if you could go to EIPS inside the board there is one office hour section which actually talks about like what all EIPs were touched in particular office hour there custom range but this one also gives us a sense of what all we touched. I don't know if we can also include some questions. Those are asked in these sessions. But yeah, if there is anything that we can do to improve it and make sure that people [music] follow

along, happy to hear. >> No, this is nice. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, if we go on custom range, we can do it for month, weeks or whatever. But this office hour is particularly [music] for 1,600 to,700 UTC. So, it captures for that individual. No, that's cool. Awesome. Yeah, this is really nice. >> All right. Well, thank you everyone for joining. Thank you Sam for taking our time. See you all in the next office hour. >> Take care. [music] Heat. Heat.

Jesus. [music]