EIP Editing Office Hour #62 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

[Music] Peace. Hold [Music] on. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat.

[Music] Oh hey.

[Music] [Music] recording in

progress. Welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting number 62. This is agenda added to Ethereum/PM repo and the issue number is 1557. We are joined by Sam Wilson who will be reviewing EIP plus ERC pull request. Thank you Sam for joining us. Maybe we can perhaps start with the final proposals. Sure thing. So let's take a look at diffusive tokens. token called diffuse token stiff and like traditional C20 token just deck.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, this seems fine. I'm going

to assume that no one has discussed this. Step check. Yep, we're good. All right, moving on. 743 new stand for nunchable tokens and

support learners. Come here. Yep, that seems fine. All right. So, two last call

1058. Um okay. purpose money to high perform payment of money. Okay. Going to final um I think that's exactly two weeks. Yep. Okay. Purpose spend money token is wrapper on a near C5 token that can be limited. PBM consist of PBM rapper.

[Music] Okay. Okay. So, they renamed this. Okay. So, they just changed the name of it. So, it's not too significant of a change.

And Okay. Okay. This is all actually

rationale. Good. Okay. [Music] Okay. Cool. So, we are one now four. Oh, I'm so sorry. Yeah, sorry. There is one more left here. So, we can do that.

We are joined by one of the author for a draft proposal. Maybe we can take it after this one. Oh, sure. This shouldn't take too too long hopefully. Um Okay.

Remove this ext. All

right. So, we had an author here. Uh, which one are we going to? The first one. It's the PR number 999 on ERC repo. All right. Did you guys have any specific questions or just take a look at it? So we are joined by Nick and Narcis from the team. So Nick or Naris, if you have any question. Yeah, there we go. My mic should be working now. I hope you're doing well, Sam. Uh it was a uh final kind of review uh to get into a draft more or less. We've uh done the majority of the changes at this point and we've gone through the testing with

the most recent change being the uh name file. uh to the ERC that we've committed and okay, I would say outside of that, I think it's pretty much good to go. All right, let's give this a read. I suppose the only other thing that is uh worth mentioning is I know that there's the uh one comment over on the magicians and uh right now I'm doing a write up and in response to that as we've looked at the comparison that you mentioned to the other two. Um that's

just that's on that platform but I I know where I'm headed with it and the differences. Oh okay. Yeah, that looks

great. You're welcome to draft. Uh Sam, we are joined by one of the authors who you just Thank you. reviewed and the PR number is 1058. Yep. Uh yeah, this is me. Yeah. Can I just check whether it was just this one last comment? Yep, that was it. Okay. Uh can I just quickly make some changes then? Uh yeah, okay. Maybe after this we can head off

to miscellaneous. So this is a list which was recommended by um Gajjender Singh when he was reviewing proposals in office hour and otherwise. Um mostly requires force merging here. Easy enough. I feel like I did this

one. Um, it's currently on there. 649. Guess I didn't. Okay. And then this one needs a force

merge. Does not, but we'll do it anyways. What is this one? Add hyperlinks to Oh.

Um. Yeah. Okay, that's right. And Okay. And then 9699 a typo fix 8712 I mean, this one's kind of

Yeah, I mean this one doesn't seem necessary to edit. There we go.

And 712 typos 7549. All right. What's going wrong with this one? The committees. Okay. Yeah. So, you're an author. So okay.

Yep, that one seems good. 225. Yep, that one's also good to merge. As much as I dislike airdrop farmers, I appreciate that people are

fixing spelling mistakes. Oh wow. This is just what is this? This is a stagnant expirable transaction. This uh this caused the TX zero choice. So I I seriously think that for standard proposal we should not include um you know typo. We should not allow them because that is like classic example of air farming. If you really

want to contribute contribute in something good or else please volunteer champion these proposals. Same for withdrawn proposals. We may see a lot of withdrawn proposals type of fixes. Yeah. They're both stagnant as well, I would assume.

Stagnant and withdrawn. 151. What's going on with this one? So, these

[Music] are reopening a PR. So this is like after a long time someone is trying to open this PR. I don't know what is the right path forward just opening this one and continuing with the same number or copy paste and create new proposal all together withdrawn. Yes. Yeah. So he has to create a new proposal with drawn suggest that you cannot use the number 215. Okay.

Okay, let's change over here. hashing needed. Yeah. Um 82. Okay. That is a hollow misk there. I guess we're going to execution.

Well, I understand these proposals will be like reviewed and finished faster than the draft one. Draft one might require a little bit longer. That's why I recommended to go before it's a good idea. Okay. Execution. Yeah. Yeah. We have a call for input to allow these. Um, you have to excuse me for one second.

Sorry about that. Okay. Um, yeah. So, we'll need a call for input for this. Um, I will do that later. uh change specific considerations to EIPs. 9457 Okay. So that's goes over there. That

goes up there. Um update vulnerable dependencies. Yeah. Okay. So, that one I can't do. Add Shanghai for check for code access list EVME IPs. Huh.

This does not seems to be a file or um on our repo or is it uh it's a pull request into EPS? Yeah this is this is 57 or 5027. So it's stagnant. Um, you have an author on this or no? No. Okay.

So choose So bot did not call the author here. Uh no because it's only modifying an asset file. Um it's not actually touching the EIP itself file. Okay, got Um, yeah. I mean, I could probably make this a little bit uh What branch was that? That

was Okay. Go here. Mhm. Yeah. We [Music] go then. Oops. This is 27. Again, this is a stagnant find. I I mean, I don't know how much value, but let's wait for author to respond there.

Yeah, I can I I'll just make it a little bit more automatic because I can. Um Mhm. So this was here and it went from draft. So we will put it back into draft. But here's the thing. Do we do we need to bring it back? Shanga is over now. No, I know it's it's if this person is editing this file, it should come out a draft right? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Again this is a question that always comes to my mind.

So if the person is not the author who is making any change to the file should we move the file back to draft without consent of the author? Uh no but that's why I was just making the change to move it to draft so that it does ping the author. Okay. Okay. And then if they approve it it would merge. But yeah but in that case what would be the uh end status here? Would that be in draft or would that be showing stagnant? Because the proposal was in stagnant. Oh. So again um if the author will allow to merge that it will suggest that um uh the proposal is draft and people can consider it or maybe move forward with

it. Right. Yeah. Like if the author like uh Chi or Key um approves it then it would go back into draft. Yeah. Okay. Okay, I'm going to meet key Khou today. So, I will perhaps bring it to his attention. Yeah, I think this is waiting on just to give you a brief context of it.

Um this proposal contains uh other than core EIP networking andformational EIP and my suggestion was even though we include the networking and informationational EIP in the spec section, we should not make it in the required section. So networking EIP is not mentioned in the required section. However, informationational is mentioned. So my recommendation here was just remove the umformational. So we have the list of core EIPs which is required for this particular upgrade. Yeah, that makes sense. I think we are still keeping the way of sharing this information as the informationational EIP is still part of this pack.

Yeah. So this this still can't be merged until these are dealt with anyway. So 25 37. Okay. So this one's gone to to final and 7702. Have you gone to final? No, not yet. Okay. So this can advance. So we can just punt that. Okay. Um Okay. So we need to verify that this person's username is the same.

Um how do we do that? JT Riley. Um, okay. If we go through the If we go here, then we go here, and then we go history. Yes. So, it's the same same username. It's been updated. Okay. Fix some typos.

Yep, that looks good. Okay. I mean it will be fine if you want to like discuss it further but if it seems simpler and can be merged I just added it for that purpose. Yeah I appreciate it. Um this is a big change. Um yeah it seems like but it's coming from the author itself looks like. Or is it a different one? Dancer dancer 13. Yeah, it's a completely different

person. Okay, then we definitely need author's approval for this one to move forward. Yeah, I don't think this is the case either. Um I remember reading a similar one where somebody was making a change and it it's just wrong. But let's see. Okay, so the source contract is a static code to the destination address with input data blah and gas 30,000. Yes. So if you get if the call fails or returns false the destination contract does not implement ERC165. Okay. Now if the call returns true a second call is made with input data that the second call fails or returns false. Okay. So no the original is

correct. Um because the the yeah the interface ID here is all fs. So yeah. Anyway, this is a big change cannot be allowed for this one unless group by author. How many Fs is it?

One two three four. One, two, three, four. Okay. Fix very bad error. There's a funny comment on that. And uh here the comment is coming from the author. Okay. Flashes instruction is

typically saved in specific storage slot. So they just remove the example change that the CIP provides instead of standard sign. Okay. So like who are the authors of this one?

So, okay. And then we can go to draft. Yeah. Okay. That those can stay open. Okay. You may refresh. Yeah. The page. That would help. All

right. I wish people would just give me editor edit permissions. It's so annoying when they don't. Okay, it's just a small checkinity check. It's so it happens when they're in an organization um and organizations can't grant the privilege. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Because generally I have seen just a small check box allow them. All right. In address specific with the companion specification display um Okay.

So then we go all the way down to here. We will add C 10 and keep Okay. where I got it. So K

10 and then K 50. There we go. Okay, that's all

good. Um yeah. So okay, so there's interup and decentralized user profiles. All right, let's take a look at this.

Yeah, this hasn't changed much since the last time. So, I think we're good to approve that. Um, I'm going to leave this one for later. Um, Ethereum network configuration for DAP VRC's. Okay.

Honestly, I think I'm a little burnt out to be able to finish reviewing this one with any kind of quality right now. Um, I think I'm just going to call it for today. Uh, we'll see you all in two weeks. Thank you, Sam. And we did a great job here today. I mean, you did a great job here today. Out of 30 proposals, you reviewed 28 proposals and like we have merged 14 closed one. So very good progress for today. It looks like you were on blitz today. Thank you so much. Oh, thanks for organizing it. I appreciate it. Take care. Sure. Thank you.

[Music] Are [Music] you moving around? [Music] you. Hey. Hey.

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

[Music] [Music]

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey,

hey hey.