EIP Editing Office Hour #74 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

[Music] Heat. Heat. water.

Thank you. Heat. [Applause]

Welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting number 74. This meeting will cover proposals PRs from EIP and ERC GitHub repositories. On agenda, we have a bunch of final proposals, PRs to move uh proposals into last call, a few for review and a good section here today is about miscellaneous and force merge and perhaps some spams that we would like to deal with and also proposals for new draft to be added. Today we are joined by a few authors on the call here today.

Sam um the first one is for final proposal and the PR number is 1230. We are joined by the author Kumar here. >> Yes. Hello. >> Yeah. >> Let's give this a read. Okay. So money Okay. I don't think this has changed significantly so far from the last time I read it.

>> Yeah. Great. >> Okay. Yeah, this all looks good.

And let me just take a look at this. And I want to look at your assets as well. 7291. That looks good.

>> Yeah, that's all nice. Okay, cool. >> Congratulations. We have one proposal moved to final standard here today. >> All right. Thank you so much. >> Oh, my pleasure. >> All right. Uh, next we are joined by author who wants to move the proposal to review status. The PR number is 1243 on ERC. >> We are joined by Quam for any questions.

>> Okay, cool. Let's take a look. All right here see one to find mineral. Okay let's start with title here. So okay intent participant provides verifiable acceptance and testation with the required set of acceptances present in fresh.

So this is a super minor feedback but uh it It's not like a requirement but just a thought. uh agency of t together with a coordinator existing intent standards 7521 763 define single initiator flow specified multi-party agreement you see specif initiator 721 712 intent 72 and 10. So,

you know what? I think that's understandable. As long as you don't define what intent is, I don't think that's going to be a problem because I'm assuming it just means an E712 like encoded and signed message and I think that's understandable. The intent becomes the required set of acceptance of expired chronicle participants. Um, okay. The keyword's mouth shouldn't enter.

Seriously specifies. Okay. Deterministic hashing rows. Okay. Let's use the following 712 domain. 5267 5267 propose 300 knots. Oh, there's a whole section on nonsense.

Perfect. Okay. Cornian payload. Okay. Um

okay so what are these specifying typed data hashes? So these are just saying get participants hash That's kind of

109 per agent. Accept instances are optional. If implemented, must be street. Okay. Perfect. uh implementation should refer registration custom errors or reverse strings for the following basic conditions and a define addition specific modules. Okay. Yep. Okay. Intention acceptance chain. 1271 Yeah, I think this is good. Um, these

comments are really, really minor. Um, feel free to, you know, sort them out while you're in review. Um, yeah, thanks for coming out. >> Thank you. So the next uh author who has joined here us today is uh for a proposal which is already in a withdrawn state status and he's trying to propose a new PR. The PR is on EIP GitHub repository 10373 and uh yeah perhaps this will be the replacement of a drawn proposal and we are joined by sir but he may not be able to speak he may not have a good

microphone. uh here to respond in chat if there is any question. >> Sure. >> Okay. Wait. So, so you said this is a replacement for a withdrawn uh EIP or >> Yeah. Yeah. for a withdrawn one. And the number of that proposal is 7980.

Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah. And what was that one withdrawn? There's no withdrawal reason. That's a problem. >> It's the same author. Maybe he got some better ideas here. Oh, it's it doesn't show up in the rendered. Huh. Going to open a bug for that. I have a bunch of spams listed for you

>> on this agenda itself. I have listed all >> uh backport And it's an ERP 7932 algorithm type for P256 support type 0x0.

So news supporting P256 signatures. That is Yep. uh P26 P256 are one of them is used nesting algorithm that already has presence in the Ethereum code base defines a new 7932 algorithm type the following parameters. Pick about RIP 7212.

H. That's annoying. Um, we get out. Okay. Uh, second curve known as P256 and 256 V1 curves of the

following domain. I'm sure that's all correct because I definitely can't read cryptography code. Um curve signature verification steps must be for the pre contract. act 500 Pass penalty.

Okay, good. Yep. Cool. All right. Where are we off to next? >> We can finish up the final proposals. There are two more. Code chain ID with transaction hash. Way

to encode a chain ID and transaction hash into a unique string format. combination opportunity and transaction hash into one string and this is for an Okay. Think of a transaction by attach contain transaction does not identify

the use chain if the change permission is included in the string itself. Finding the right chain for the transaction is easy. Such strings can then be used for example on forward service for the correct blockchain explorer. The chain ID is included in some object format such as the transaction object inside the blockchain itself. That object is a lot of uned data for our purposes. Chain ID as chain ID. The chain ID must be based on E155 and the chain ID repository stated in that EIP. Transaction hash known as TX hash must include the zero X prefix. The section TX acting as a type identified. The syntax is chain ID.

An example for a transaction with hash blah that was issued on chain ID 1 is okay. I think this is fine. We have one more final year. Thank you.

3009. This is an oldie. All right. >> Happy to see people making effort to finally finalize their proposals. okay. So let's start by looking at the history of this.

>> Yeah. Just a thought like can we move from stagnant to final directly or we have to go back to the original status? >> You have to go back to the the original status. Uh so when was it here? stagnant, right? That means it's probably stagnant here as well. Yeah, let's >> It's before the split time. Pretty old.

>> So, draft. Okay. So, So, title What are the other things we have to fix

in here? Feel like this will actually be kind of a useful exercise for office hours, updating a really old EIP. >> Yeah. Right. >> Um, okay. So, a couple of these Okay. And then non relative mid link or Y. Okay. And there's an existing spec er

2612 that also has contract implements both for maximum compatibility. The two version 6. So, what are SWC's? There's just always more things. Oh, not actively maintained.

Okay. So, what is the license of an S SWC? It is MIT. WC's are not part of not part of accepted links. Right. >> Correct. Yeah. >> I'm not sure if it is the case for this particular link that they are trying to share. But in general if SWC's are not actively maintained they cannot be even part of accepted link even if someone makes a proposal. Is that correct?

>> Yeah pretty much. Yeah. looks nice for this. I think that looks nice. Let's go with that. Uh 777

URC 677 probably doesn't exist. Um have been to get my adoption in the UK.

that looks fine. And Uh implementation

And these should be subheadings. Yeah, that seems decent. Commit changes.

Wait for the refresh button to show up. there. Oh, you do need a discussions, too, though. I missed that. All right, this is 2009. Oh, somebody else I guess already

resumed at the 7758. How's that one doing? Yeah, I guess I should probably leave a comment to that effect as well. >> this is a unique case here. So which one would be uh like if they have to move forward which one would be preferred if that that can be used here the old >> I think that's up to them to figure it out uh if they want to like their list is author is on the new one so they can withdraw it if they want um

>> Mhm. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That would be a better approach because keeping an stagnant would not help. >> Yeah, exactly. Um, okay. Back to here. transfer with authorization.

ERC token token. and here.

Grab this. Go here. Go here. Edit again. Discussions two comes right after author. Hey, go away. And let's see if this passes now. MIT MIT.

Okay, that all seems good. Did I miss anything? I did. What did I miss? should make a browser extension that

just uh runs EPW inside of the GitHub UI. That would certainly make my life slightly easier when I'm doing this kind of work. Um, >> definitely a good idea. Oh, I can't believe I didn't catch that. Let's fix that. world's noisiest PR review. Um,

Good. So now we can prove this cool. Okay.

So, let's see. Can we go to last call in 15 minutes if this is a small one? Probably. Uh, so this one needs to go to last call first. So, why hasn't this merged? This hasn't merged because cloud code doesn't know how to do e validator. That's fine. 7892. Okay. So 7 8 92 792 are you in you're in last call. Oh I

see. That just needs to be updated. Can I update you? No. Okay. So, I'll have to do this myself. So, go here. Go here. Go here. Sorry, I'll be off screen for a second here. Um, add fetch and they go

check out 791. Last cup. There we go.

Go back over here. This has been updated. Okay. So, we're good. This will merge on its own now. Perfect.

Actually, just in case, I'll also give it an approved Okay, cool. Um, maybe you could do one more. Uh, 1189. What's going on on this one? Okay, let's give this a read.

generalized contract on services def factory for generic propos defense factory capable of deploying generic service link specific contracts such as 437 accounts services functionalities operating yeah much better okay think yeah Perfect. This is all good. Oh, wait. What's two weeks from today? 21st.

All right. I guess that's uh it for today for me. Um, thanks everybody for coming out. Thanks for putting up with the long Q times. Um, >> thank you Sam. >> See you on the next call. >> Thank you everyone. What's up?

heat, heat. Heat up