EIP Editing Office Hour #61 (EIP Only)

Transcript

[Music] Ooh. Hey. [Music] Hey. [Music] Heat.

[Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] Hey hey hey.

[Music] Recording in progress. Welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting number 61. This is issue number 1542 on Ethereum/PM GitHub repository. On agenda, we have very few PRs for review today. Thanks to Gajender Singh who has already reviewed some of the open PRs right before this meeting.

Um but whatever we have got contains a few in final, three for draft and a few in miscellaneous section. Gajender if you would like to maybe share your screen and uh uh start reviewing the proposals. Yep. Sounds good. Thank you. I hope there is no problem in screen

sharing otherwise I can perhaps make you co-host if that helps. Yeah, sorry about that. Uh my zoom crashed while screen sharing so I'll try this time. Sure. I hope it is

working. Can't say for sure like if Gajendra is still online or some issue issue with Zoom again. Oh yeah, see him joining again. Sometimes it is fun with Zoom. Yep, it crashed again. So, just try for a desktop share. I mean if it is trouble sharing

from your end I'm open to share my screen um but you may have to walk us through which proposal we are reviewing although we may may not be able to follow your exact process There. Yep, we can see your screen now.

Yep, finally we have the share, right? Okay, let me quickly share the link to the agenda in chat for your quick reference. 42 Uh so should I go on? Yes, please go ahead with the final proposals first maybe. Yeah. So ERC I think uh Sam will look at it. This 7600 EIP I this is regarding the meta EIP for Pectra and uh I'm not sure whether it's ready to be

merged because there was still some open EIPs. That's correct. Yes. And I also have some conversation if it is okay we can perhaps have it discussed on tomorrow's EIP IP meeting. It seems like um um I mean I I feel like uhformational EIP is fine to be a part of the maybe spec there in the description section of the proposal but I am uh yet not comfortable having it in the required section. I have given my entire uh argument why I don't feel it to be a part of uh required because informationational by

definition is an optional and by required we are kind of contradicting it. I don't know what other people think here. If you are open we can perhaps bring it in the next meeting or also collect some thoughts from here. I think that's interesting, Pua. Um, at first blush, what you're what you're advocating for makes a lot of sense. But on the other hand, there are, for instance, I'm working on an EIP right now to specify the Genesis format for a Genesis file.

And that should really be informational because it's not consensus breaking. But on the other hand, there's additional EIPs that are being developed that should refer back to it. So I think for consensus we are specifically having core EIP which are like consensus dependent and everybody has to implement that. But the fundamental difference in my mind aboutformational and meta is something that is defined and uh it is optional when it is in form offormational and it is mandatory. People can't excuse that

when it is in meta e. So you can't require something that's optional is what you're saying. Yes. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Is there um okay let me let me chew on that for a little bit. Yeah sure I mean we can perhaps bring it in in the next meeting tomorrow which is EIP meeting in which we will have more editors on call so we can collect more thoughts from different people. Yep. I think uh tomorrow we can discuss about this and see uh what is the way forward.

Sounds good. All right. Okay. Moving to drafts. Yeah. So author himself has

uh created this update. So I'm not sure why it requires any of our approval. Maybe because of the change in discussions to linking which I don't think that should it. Do you think it requires a force much like should we add it in that list? It shouldn't require force much. Let's see. Yep, it seems like ebo is sort of stuck. So maybe I'll just close it and open it again to give the boat a kick.

Sounds good. Yeah, it works sometimes. So I already reviewed uh the CIP and left some comments which are technical in nature. So as well as some other people have left uh comments on this PR 9792 regarding sorted key value store.

uh so when those will be addressed or there will be a response on them then we can probably move forward. I think we have Kev on the call. Um Kev, I wonder if you would like to add anything for this particular pier. Sorry, I'm I'm if I'm pronouncing your name wrong. I'm so sorry. Hello. Can Can you Can you guys hear my voice? Yes. Cool. Cool. Uh yes so I I have answered some some of those comments. I was waiting for an EIP number so that I can update my pull request. Um yeah so EIP number I mean if

it's a valid EIP then we'll assign an EIP number but seems like uh I so I don't understand uh this what this EIP intends for us to change in the protocol because uh again mappings is a solidity concept and uh so again we are going into technical discussions uh but the point is that slots in the storage they are already you know sorted in some manner that they Yes. So the point is right so yeah yeah I I mean um yes uh in in the database they are sorted but do we have access uh to these sorted data in the EVM itself? I mean

can we iterate through them? The EIP suggests that uh having access to like so if you have if you have some key you can always do key plus one and access that location. So it's already iterable in that sense. I don't understand you can't iterate through it. Yeah but uh it is I mean uh not all of the keys are incremental. You may have uh a lot of keys in your database but their their numbers are not close to each other. So you just want to um have some kind of facilities so you

can iterate through all of the keys that already exist in the database. Yeah. So I think what you want is another key index and uh this is sort of uh could be done itself on the application layer. Uh it doesn't need to be done on the protocol layer. This is my reading of it. But if you strongly feel for it then maybe you can uh bring in uh uh some E client dev and get the PR reviewed. I guess I think Cena is already there and I'm not sure I think he has also raised a similar query or a

question but yeah I think let's uh coordinate on this async and see if uh this is something that we want to address on the e client. Okay cool. Uh I will continue discussion with um others on this and maybe we can have it later. Sounds good. We can move on to 9354. Yeah. So this CIP is uh yet to be

correctly format formatted. Uh so we'll come back to it uh when this has been done by the author and all the linear issues have been addressed by the author. Yeah. We have another PR. We can perhaps get it to it after finishing up all on the agenda here today. Um, so yeah, we can maybe proceed with miscellaneous. It seems like just a

typo. Wasn't sure. Next we are on 9429.

I think uh this would require the author of the EIP to sort of uh technically review it and maybe the author of this PR should contact the author of uh CIP of that. Sure. Um I imagine that bot may have automatically invited the author of the proposal. No actually I don't see it there. Would you want to maybe make a explicit mention of like uh author of proposal is required here?

Uh I think uh this is this could be primarily because this is one of the file in the assets that is being changed. Uh so I'll look for the author of the CIP and track that person later on. Sounds good. Yeah. All right. So we have one last for today's from the agenda. The number is 9448. I think of one more of uh the editors

will need to approve this PR. I have approved it. Oh, because this is website related and two editors approval is required here. Yep. Two or more reviewers. Okay, sounds good. We will bring it for tomorrow's meeting and try to get the approval and 448. That brings to the end of this agenda uh items. But Justin here on the call has a PR in his GitHub repository.

perhaps an effort to create an EIP. Um, if you would like to maybe take a look at it and provide quick reviews on that. The link is added to chat. Yeah, I just had a couple of questions. It's it's really rough because it's really early for the EIP, but I'm doing something in here that I haven't seen done elsewhere and I could use some advice on it. We are adding a JSON schema for the genesis.json JSON file that's used by most clients to specify initial um settings for a blockchain. And I wanted to stick the JSON schema file in the assets directory um and potentially link to it from the EIP text itself and maybe have it

inlined. Um so I don't know if that's a thing that it's uh gender it's not in it's not PRD into the Ethereum repo yet. You have to use the link in the chat in Zoom if you're trying to look at it. Yeah, the chat. One second. Oh, okay. Uh, so I have opened your draft. So is

it coming through or I think it's in a different Yes, I can see it. Yeah, I can see it. Um, so if you just go to the file, you just see the raw text there. Um, yeah. So, if you scroll down, the part that I need help with, um, is, so there's this table at the top. I might be getting rid of that. But this JSON schema right here, I just kind of cut and paste, um, one of the versions of it into that, which is suboptimal for iterating on it.

Um, should I stick that as its own file in the assets directory and link to it so people just click on the link and it pops it open or is there a way to actually inline it and still have it broken out into a separate file. I don't know how to embed a file, a JSON file into the main. I'll check on this. Uh but I mean if uh JSON schema isn't too long then probably you can keep it rare.

I think that's fairly close to how long this isn't. Yeah, this I think this is fine uh because it is not that long and uh still comprehensible. Great. Okay, follow-up question. Um, JSON schema allows for both description and comment fields to be included in each type. That is a potential replacement for the tables that you see above. Um, I don't know which one is preferred. I don't know if there's precedent for it. Again I don't think it is uh it is

really I mean contentious in that sense that you want to have one or the other or you can have both uh because in the end it's about the read readability of the EIP and uh if it helps uh your EIP readers to uh understand your EIP in a better way I think it doesn't matter I think it's good it can it can be okay Thank you. Thank you. That's good. I can take that back to the other people that are going to be referring to it and ask them if they find more. Cool. Cool. Uh that's all I had.

Thank you. Give me a quick thank you. I think uh for people just want to share that we are I think this is our almost every week on news at 1600 UTC. Sometimes we include EI plus and sometimes it is EC in the goal here is to clear the number of open request. So if you have any question if you have a P in there please reach out to us and add your PI on the agenda so we can take it up discuss with you and try to close it or it as soon as possible. Well, thank

you. Thanks for joining us here today. And people who are interested in learning more about the process. We will have an IP meeting which happens only once a month every Wednesday at 49C. So you can join us tomorrow on May 21st at 49C. Thank you everyone. [Music] Hold

[Music] on. Heat. Heat. [Music] N. Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] [Music]

[Music] Hey moving [Music] on. [Music] Heat. Heat.

[Music]