EIP Editing Office Hour #50

Transcript

[Music] oh [Music] oh

[Music] [Music] a [Music] [Music]

welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting number 50 this is issue number 377 on eat herders EIP I GitHub repository because this is 50th hour I would like to congratulate everyone who has been participating in this office hour a huge shout out and thank you to Sam Wilson who has uh LED this session for so many days so actually it's over two years uh that he has been joining these calls and answering questions of authors helping them move their proposals into different statuses so thank you Sam for all the work that you have done so far for EIP and ERC reviewing we look forward to

have you for uh more reviews going forward and on this special occasion I'm also very happy to share that today is the first meeting when we are having it EIP only editing office hour thank you gajendra Singh um who Grace graciously accepted the proposal to help us review these proposals we we want to decrease the number of open pull requests and make sure that all EIP are in in the most updated status so we hope that increasing this one additional office hour will be able to help us achieve our goal we have published a blog post just to summarize what we are doing how it

all started and obviously gratitude to the community and editors who have helped us achieve uh this success so far so with that said uh we can perhaps go ahead and start with today's meeting where we have already uh listed a number of poll requests since we could not have the last meeting uh synchronously I think most of the PRS which were ERC related have already been closed and I have updated the agenda for EIP only if any ERC related proposal is not merged uh that would be moved to meeting 51 so with that I would like to pass it to gajender Singh thank you gajendra and

yeah please take it from here thank you Puja uh for setting this up and thanks Sam uh for basically leading the EIP editing hours and basically continuing to do that and hopefully uh I will have some contribution to lesson you lot right so basically we y so we can so Pua I mean we can look at the list that you you have populated over here that's right we can perhaps start with all the eips uh I have tried to hide the ERC one with details so just a skip wherever you

find details and all the open one with eips we can start with the first proposal here is for 9272 which is to move into review status yeah just checking if there is a too which is not marked in the HTML tag I guess this looks F to

me I think this is one of the Fest proposal on cour side moving to the review status all right I think after this we have a bunch of draft proposals my understanding is draft proposals may take a little while to uh go through if you would like to first uh take care of miscellaneous because that would be faster to navigate and then we'll come back to the draft proposals yep sounds good yeah I think this requires input

from the authors yes uh that is another thing like you know sometimes we have something which is pending for three weeks or more for author's input um I don't know if we should uh do some specific approach here or send we can't do anything I mean even though the clarification there sounded okay to me but uh I mean we can't basically merge it on behalf of flight client who's the author of the pr I think okay so yeah there are a bunch of 7702 related proposals um yeah you can take a

look and maybe in editor meeting we would like to discuss how to like address this kind of issue because this is obviously increasing the volume of incoming PRS and it remains unsolved unmerge even though it's not theault of editor yeahuh yeah I mean even in uh even in the third PR 915 to it's again about uh changing uh the technicals of VIP and it would best be handled by the author himself ourself good again I think this is a technical

sounding change and so I'm just going to take the one that I think will anyway require approval from the author because once he approves I mean it will automatically be merge but if it requires another take from us then we can actually have a look at it but we definitely need uh the author to approve it and since these VIPs are basically pretty active and under active consideration because of the fork inclusion I hope the author of this

particular EIP will address all the pr soon enough or to me or the or the people who have raised the PRS they should actually maybe raise it in the ACD because this would be pretty much uh being dealt with uh in the ACD itself that's a fairly good suggestion I don't know if this um maybe we can check with the ACD coordinators before submitting these kind of PS for the meeting and yeah maybe follow of the authors because these are actively considered e

again the CIP is making changes that must be addressed by the author himself or herself and addition of new author list very well going forward I will um skip wherever it is already labeled as author's attention uh and yeah I think that would be helpful I think go has already looked at it and

he's waiting for something for someone else to review the change very well with that we can perhaps move to look into the proposals which are new uh some of them may have received number on some m not so we can allocate and yeah take a look at the draft proposal submitted here so I am looking into Sam's uh flow control wallet EIP so I haven't gone through it fully because I was looking into technicals of it and maybe you know when I'm done Sam I'll basically approve

it yeah so I have raised some issues in this particular EIP at least for adding toos so that uh when the EIP is moved to review then

those toos get Auto flagged by the B uh in that way basically you know uh it it basically saves the round trip for everyone as as well as I see that some of the technical issues have not been addressed but with regard to editing uh basically I'm more concerned about uh abouted adding the todos uh instead of writing TBD in the eips but I I don't think author has taken a look at it since I last commented e

I'm checking the theem additions link okay so that seems valid and there is an active discussion going on

e e I'm not sure there I think there could

be a better description it's for a draft I think as as long as we have one we can move forward and we can get back to it

e e e

e e so I think we need our view of uh someone who understands this a bit

more to basically substantiate some of the claims that have been made a reviewer maybe with the SM on this side yeah maybe someone from ACD who can just look at it and say okay this looks fine do we want to leave these kind of Po request with some comment so the author may know that what is the reason why it hasn't been merged and what are we waiting on and um yeah okay perf I I add a comment over

here so I'll take a look at it once the author comes back and responds to the comment sounds good oh okay so the magici link seems to be

working so we have a bot flagging some failure I think it's because the person auor hasn't used a relative URL e

e e e

e e e

e e e e

if anyone has any questions please feel free to drop it in the [Music] chat e

e e e

e e e maybe we can take yeah maybe we can take

another one um I have just added it here and I think we have the author on call as well uh the pr number is uh 9270 I have shared the link in chat if you would refresh then maybe it will appear at your end yeah I got it I think it's already in draft so yeah but he mentions that was a mistake he would love to have some he has posted some queries with respect to this proposal being in um living status as well as um um some reviews maybe some help with respect to how to handle the

external links issue here k please feel free to add any more question if you may have yeah sure um essentially we see this uh disect effect being updated over time and uh there were concerns that it would imply a new EIP each time and someone on the last call said that we could use a Live status uh so that you edit it in place but I'm not sure how this works or if that's even possible I don't think we basically also allow live to be updated but what the easy thing can can be you can say that

this part EIP is for a particular hard for in that case basically it's rooted in time and as well as included in uh the requirements of hardware and bandwidth uh and does that mean a new EIP every time we update the uh specs yep yeah I guess that would be undesirable yeah I didn't know what the living status meant uh uh I think it would be easily created so yeah I think uh we can perhaps get

some reference from the networking EIP we get it for like E64 e65 every time there is a change of specs we come up with new proposal and generally speaking living as Sam mentioned in the chat it is a status for more governance related document because that is going to be one time and people will keep on updating but when it comes to Specs something having a closure is generally recommended uh so for example if we are having this Hardware requirement right now it could be from this point onward until uh it changes though we do not see a lot of uh changes but if it does we can perhaps have a new proposal just like we have it on networking side

yeah so we can say basically hardware and band recommendations for pectra or something like that or as of a certain date so I have a quick question you guys regarding this EIP um and actually eips in general uh really in terms of the granularity of the the bases like the the sub substantive evidence um providing uh um any indication um or like really evidence that uh like for example these Hardware requirements are the minimum requirements that are necessary so this came up in my Discord um uh discussion as well but like you notice here in the

EIP right there doesn't really seem to be any sort of like basis for why or how we derived um not only the commercial products Hardware that we're recommending but also the um specifications that are being recommended as well and I wasn't sure if that I added a comment um in terms of whether or not that was something we explic wanted to avoid there are other comments as well is like do we want to suggest specific um like SSD brands or do we just want to stick to like you know actual Hardware specifications themselves like a certain number of IO Ops per second and this expands to other eips as well like it seems to me that EIP should

be pretty like substantive right they should have evidence maybe like benchmarking results something to support you know what it is that they're suggesting whereas this seems a like pretty high level in that sense um do others like disagree or least or like understand the question yeah so so benchmarking requirements I mean definitely would support the EIP more and but just for the draft purposes uh I think some Todo for benchmarking could be left over here uh but if it goes into review then definitely it would make sense for the CIP to provide some

benchmarking uh to support the reasoning um oh God uh there was some rationale in the old document but it was it just basically contained a bunch of links uh that I didn't want to copy over uh so the recommendations are based off of uh what I'd say it's commodity Hardware so these are not minimal uh requirements I think I said that in the abstract and I'm not sure whether we would want to sort of you know add some

particular Brands over here could you say that again I'm not sure whether we would we would want want to have some particular brands that we this particular EIP is recommending right yeah yeah I agree we can remove that and put in the iio metrics instead uh just a suggestion on um on formatting I'd put the recommendations in the specification section and then any evidence for why you made those recommendations in the rationale section okay uh yeah the evidence had a lot of links it was in the old Hardware document uh I wasn't sure how to put

those over or generally dealing with links also does that apply to like the um the recommended like form factors like Raspberry Pi five six or the Micron not the Micron I can't remember the name exactly but in terms of like recommending a particular like form factor or hardware setup not hardware setup you know what I like that um have go back and look at the Dos like the specifics but it seems like those can change over time as well right like we're basing on uh like there's um the price value or the ra the excuse me the cost ratio but what's 's the term like the cost effective Effectiveness

ratio um could change dramatically right over time like the next time you know in like a year that product may not even be offered anymore or um it may be hard to hard to find I just yeah I'm just curious where that comes from play right yeah so it's possible that like the Nook 14 isn't offered anymore and like if that happens then they'd have to sort of look at the CPU rating and then uh look at what is offered to see if it meets the CPU ratings um but I mean yeah I think that happens we probably just need to update it to remove it oh good so Sam what what do you think is

the right way to do this I mean should the EIP mention it is targeting some particular hard Fork um hardfork or date I think would be appropriate um like if we establish the convention that we're going to release one of these with each hard Fork I think that's a pretty good idea uh and if it stays the same then we just uh copy it over yep okay or or don't like it's up to you so so you say that this is spectra onwards or danab onwards and basically if there is no update then that particular EIP still qualifies and the new could say that this overrides the

specifications of previous EIP exactly yeah and like maybe in Tim's hard Fork meta EIP it could link to the um Hardware requirements CIP for that hard Fork yes that would basically close the loop uh I guess it means that for external websites they would also need to keep updating their links to whichever EIP instead of like just pointing to a single thing that was my original concern that's why I said it was undesirable yeah yeah that that that's a common problem with eips um sorry good jender do you mind if I go into this a little bit or yeah yeah I okay so the the problem with this is

like we don't want to enforce that your EIP describing the hardware requirements is the canonical EIP describing Hardware requirements if somebody else came along and had a different analysis and made different recommendations we would publish both eips so uh that that's why we aren't going to have like a a redirect to the latest EIP and then uh the reason why they go to final is because we want to make sure that everything like eventually becomes a snapshot in time at the time that that EIP was written um so kind of give us like historical context for for ethereum and so we can preserve all that information right right that makes sense um also also basically any website which

basically wants to sort of uh provide this information to the users uh if they update their content that is more likely basically uh they will consider uh uh uh they will cons they will have more positive consideration from other search engines as well as from the users because users will know that okay you know this is the new update that is out there for this particular H folk and uh so basically they can trust the freshness of the data that is that is out there yeah that makes sense I yeah I think possibly I we trying to fit square into a circle here uh which is why it doesn't doesn't fit as good as we want

let me think about it a bit more um I think it's fine to just go with what you guys said for now yeah all right have uh once you have made the updates I'll take a look uh did you put any comments on the links that I mentioned uh there was like I think a link to statista which was okay because they had a DOI but like for gsma and the hackmd links are those fine uh I'm not sure how to handle those I think we'll need to update our link policy for that and uh for that we need to create a call for

Action so which I will create and uh then other editors would vote on it and then we can take it Forward oh I see hacking D should be copied into your assets directory okay I see and one last thing C here whenever you are ready uh please uh take it out from the draft status so we can consider it for active discussion or watching yeah okay

yeah yeah okay seems like you added discussions to right yeah I didn't have a uh particular permissions on E magician so Sam uh created one I mean uh even though people are calling

for providing you know reasoning for all these points but uh yeah it's sort of your EIP and you can publish some standards and even though you know some benchmarking would be nice but uh even if it's not there I don't see it as a blocker as such because as Sam said that anyone can come up and publish uh their hardware and bandwidth recommendations and we would just take them in but if they are properly formatted and uh what they say piense uh all right then we can move to the

last all right Sam you are the review here oh is this the um one with the patent oh I think the ERC I think is is it basically Mis created I because category is ERC misfile Erp EIP it should be in ERC

right um what does it do here um so can I ask a question yeah of course okay yeah about this EIP there is no like an IT magician link to it so because I had a couple of questions regarding the um uh the encryption standard like he was he or she was basically saying something about um Quantum Computing and all of that so I had a lot of questions but I don't know how where to put the questions into since there is no link for discussion technical discussions where can I possibly do that uh you'll have to wait for the discussion link to show

up and one will like it it won't get merged without one so it'll show up sometime seems like I mean uh I would basically go into it once we have the basic data that we require in the EIP to be there and once we have clarification on EIP ERC thing I was wondering why only two editors are like marked here now I get

it it's a like mistakenly added here so when it goes to the right reposit trate will be taken care and also this seems to be a very broad change and doesn't seem to be basically targeting some particular problem I'm not sure whether you know we we can we would like to have such broad neps because it basically means totally overhauling what we have may attract a lot of discussion

when the discussion to link is there yeah but even if for example this kind of discussions are happening in discussion to I'm not sure whether we'll we should accept such eips as draft eips which basically are not targeting anything concrete and it just seems like a vision kind of a proposal or a road map kind of a proposal I'm not sure at this point like uh obviously when this proposal is not in the right uh GitHub repository so we cannot um ask for this but had it been in the right repository would there be an allocation of EIP number even if this

is not being merged I think EIP number is sort of you know uh independently allocated as such and if someone allocated EIP number if any of that itors or I think Andrew uh so uh so if an EIP number was allocated then we would any not use it for any other EIP yeah yeah my question is more like you know should we do that or not do that like um a a question from author's side like generally speaking if a

proposal gets an number U they can refer that number but unless that proposal is merged only pull request has to be referred so I don't see value in adding uh like number when it is not being merged or when it is not being considered to be merged as draft yeah just curious on that side I wonder if either of you have any thought on that I mean as a process it's just simple that you know you just created an entry and you listed a PR and we just roll over the number so that we don't have to think again so in that sense I guess unless we we think that this is some attack on EIP repo happening that

where people are creating junk eips and the numbers are being allocated to that if that is not happening I guess you know we just should allocate a number and move on that makes sense yeah uh all right I think this concludes uh the current dip editing session and uh there are few VIPs uh that I am uh I will basically look and review and once uh author come back authors come back on the comments that we have left on the IPS then we can basically take it forward that sounds good thank you so much gajender Singh for taking a look at

it I'll be mindful of putting proposals which are not for author spending and generally for like waiting on editor site I have shared the link of e board maybe we can next time go go with the AP board poll request where it is like when it requires editors attention only well thank you everyone for joining us here today and um if there are any further questions with respect to any poll request please feel free to drop it in the Discord of ethereum cat herders there is an EIP editors Channel specifically um unless you want to wait for the next meeting by the way next meeting would be on next Tuesday at 1600 UTC that would include both e and

ERC So yeah thank you everyone for joining us here today and we made good progress and like looking into all these proposals here today thank you gajender thank you Sam thank you have a good one [Music] oh [Music] oh

[Music] [Music] [Music]

oh n [Music] oh [Music] oh

[Music] [Music] w

[Music]