EIP Editing Office Hour #48

Transcript

[Music] oh [Music] oh

[Music] oh

[Music] [Music] welcome to EIP editing office our meeting number 48 this is issue number 370 on agenda today we have a few

proposals to be moved into the review status some of them are eaps some of them are erc's and we are also joined by some of the authors who are trying to propose some new erc's um we are joined by Anushka and Sham and the first PR in request is PR 723 from ERC category thank you Sam for joining us over to you hey so let's take a look at this so did you have any specific questions about this or just uh want some general information so Sam we just wanted just general information like whatever

changes you suggested last time we did and if we wanted your feedback and like what would be the next process afterwards can do let's see so um um it'll go into the review status um or into the draft status rather and then whenever your like the the standard is complete um like it's it's been fully specified you can open a PR to move it into review um then you Sam your voice is

breaking reviews from people in the ecosystem that would be relevant you can move it into last call and then you will be better yeah yeah no okay yeah so sorry yeah um basically you just open PRS to move it through the statuses when you think you're ready to do so okay so basically we can we can make we can update these the ERC status to review now right all right soam you were frozen for a few seconds I don't know if you followed the question

here the question oh yeah sham could you please repeat so Sam will you be updating the status to from draft to review or like we'll oh no that's up to you okay yeah so whenever you want to to do it you can make that change okay okay okay so your rationale here is decent

um it goes more into like usage here which is which is fine um but it's also important to talk about like design decisions you've made and not just how you're supposed to use it um and it's not it's not enough to like block this I'm still going to approve it but um just think about that while you're in review if you um get any questions about how things uh like were designed or or why things are the way they are um just remember you can always add those into your rationale section okay um that's good it's fine okay okay yeah this is good security

considerations yeah that's perfect so then we can do this and and then we can do that and then we can approve it yeah so that looks great um just uh like I said um go out and find people to review it if you can find them um and uh once you're satisfied that the ecosystem is like in support of your proposal uh you can move it from review into last call um yeah so like how can we find the

reviewers like or E edit that is a difficult question um so there are a few groups that do um like like interest groups like there's an nft working group um there's uh like the openc kind of Discord has some developers on it uh so like if you just share your proposal around in those kind of developer groups uh people tend to look at it um but like if you're already certain that this is the way it's going to look at the end then you can just move it yourself um but I would recommend trying to find somebody um but we don't like have reviewers on on staff or anything like that

okay I don't know if wallet group can another be point for maybe sharing oh yeah yeah that'd be a good one um here I'll put a Link in the chat so um there is a group here we do monthly calls on wallet related topics and um this Loosely touches on um wallets so it might be worth sharing it there and uh seeing if wallets have any input I can't promise they will but it's a good place to start okay good I'm not sure if we have visibility on the next meeting Sam is it

any specified date that we can share it is uh so the next date is on the 18th of December perfect yeah so if you are around you may want to join the 18th of December at 1800 UTC and you can find all the information on the Discord of wallet does okay perfect cool thanks for coming out we can now move on to the proposals which are waiting to be moved to the review status there are two eips and two erc's however I see one EIP is dependent on another but I have listed all four of them together so okay um what order

should I be looking at this in then just in the order here yeah you can go ahead with that okay all right let's take a look here I can probably make this a little bit there [Music] um okay um can I edit this I can that's even better so so we don't need

this and we don't need that okay the get Contract op code return the address contain in the B code hash and content addressing by hash's Common pattern and database design stor retrieve data by its unique footprint in the store use the industry and allows so you're very quiet if somebody's talking I just un muted I'm waiting for the response in chat actual storage location see the same B Cod okay today

existing contract Discovery relies on addresses which n determin can be OB proces indexing by B code project okay uh consider okay all right so that's fine um okay output if code hash exists on the state pushes the course fing contract address onto the stack

interesting every country must be the state Tri with a key being okay um don't need that there's operation that's fine so that's all good so we can commit these all right so this is fine but I am

not a fan of how the this is worded so let's go and make a technical comment on it okay so we wanted to the code hash exists in the state pushes the corresponding contract address onto the stack okay so this is the problem here so we're going to go over here we're going to reply and we're going to say and um Okay cool so we can move on to the

next one so 76 91 um so yeah for this particular one I guess 9095 is blogged on 9094 on the pr number so check that one first actually yeah so what is this from being blocked on so 7691 yeah so this one I need to do this one first okay okay so increase the number of blobs to reach a new Target Magics of six and N blob okay that's a nice description the CP proposes to increase just change this

to increases the number of blobs in a block to provide more scale to [Music] the okay three for three and six respectively good as we know have dun upgrade live yep that's good this is all fine um

okay but uh you need to fill out the to-dos so why isn't this finding those as errors which is kind of annoying yeah that shouldn't have passed that's a bug to go and fix um I think this was for you know review or last call maybe that's why it is not it should trigger an error once you

go into review um and it's really weird that it's not um so let's go and see what's going on here yeah so this is broken so let's go make a bug for [Music] that what was that called it was marked down HTML comment yeah that's probably

fine and we'll grab a link [Music] to this check and we'll put that in here and we'll submit okay I always love finding bugs while we're doing this and I hope someone watching this video may be able to jump in and help us with that hopefully that would be nice uh request changes okay so that's easy so we can't

review um this one oh we already so we can number to 9095 sorry say that again uh we need to go to 9095 because this was 9094 but yeah we can't do that one because we didn't approve the other one okay perfect so let's move on to the third one yes 9092 okay yeah so this isn't me this is a Tim review yeah Okay cool so 738 nothing going on here all right

moving into review okay the CC proposes new standard for non funable tokens and supports multiple owners the M nft standard allows single of multiple owners reflecting the shared and distri okay

[Music] am I the one who approved this wait you're already in review why are you being moved to review again oh no I'm just umum what po request was this in no idea

doesn't really matter 7743 and that was me I really shouldn't have approved that oh well okay so 7746 so we're going into review okay this see composable security middleware hook interface for composable rtime security check that's reasonable um the C propos to started face I layer

for implementing composable security layers and smart contracts these layers act as middleware enabling runtime validation of function calls before and after execution uh [Music] good all right so is 4337 in review you are a draft I was seriously hoping this 43317 makes a new PR oh I'm sure they have probably entirely given up on the EIP process and they're just doing it on their own oh no actually they are trying to split the

EIP into two different eips and to do it uh I'll follow up with them again okay so let two functions before call and after call good that's all good yeah this is mostly fine except for that one thing cool so I looked into most of the proposals listed here looks like you

have already taken out time because they were moved from the last meeting to this meeting so you have checked most of them the only three unchecked are the new one that you haven't looked into like down here yes okay okay let's go through and read this then uh cool that's a great description this proposal introduces

okay create a Decay mechanism by overruning the get votes on the parent contract reducing the tokens voting power over time okay where does SC votes come from in the parent contract okay okay reference implementation good

for kind is compromised okay yes this is

fine okay actually can I just Commit This one I can perfect I probably have to re approve you [Music] now there all right so decentralized identity verification all right let's give this a

read uh decentral priv method for decentralized identity verif okay sure proposal introduces standard for decentralized identity verification on the blockchain standard cryptographic hashes represent identity proofs and Advance okay centralized verication how do that render does that render correctly no okay

and what do these have so many all right let's do some more editing here the following stakeholders we'll go like that and then these will go to four get rid of these colons okay cool okay

Enter cool okay I guess there's a lot of edits I need to make on this one sorry um where I go verification function the verify identity function get Contra that is okay so all right so struct ident

idty verified revoked create identity verify identity revoke okay get okay good that's good we get rid of that extra space Ral okay then have a reference implementation yeah it seems fine all right we can approve this and

it can go in as a draft and for the last one I yes we are joined by the author oh hey m s dxi uh the pr number is 718 what did I say on this one yeah okay cool let's go and give this a read 20

C okay good Bunch instruments cool Epoch specific block period block based time base to to an Epoch valid as as theox active Okay just grab this

bring that up here okay and then good you have requires 20 perfect type of the iteration no there you are okay cool okay balance that Epoch good yeah that's fine fully backwards

perfect good that's good you have security considerations that's perfect yeah this is awesome so I will just commit these tiny little changes and then we can approve this cool um did you have any other questions about the process or um mised it I would assume no question question for now yeah Okay cool so so we have covered everything on the list I do see

57 other open PS um from the project board maybe if you would want you can take a look at at async or if you would want to pick up anything otherwise we good I we can think we can wrap this up I'll just finish reviewing them I'm almost done all the erc's and I'm pretty excited about it so yeah um guess we'll see you all in what two weeks absolutely thanks Sam for taking our time see you guys thank you everyone for joining take care [Music] oh

oh [Music] n [Music] oh

[Music] [Music] n [Music] n

[Music] [Music]

oh [Music] [Music]

oh