EIP Editing Office Hour #75 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

Loading developers...

[Music] Thank you.

Heat. Heat up here.

Heat up here. Heat. Heat.

All right, welcome to EIP editing office hour. This is meeting 75 and has been added on uh GitHub Ethereum PM repo with issue number 1761. On today's agenda, we have a couple of proposals for last call, a bunch for review, and many more for draft status. So, um, we are joined by editors, editor Victor. Victor, thank you for joining us. Maybe we can go ahead and get started with taking a look at the last call proposals.

EIP Editing Office Hour Introduction

>> Thank you very much, Huja. Uh, before everything else, uh, let me check. Uh do we have anyone live on the uh on the call? >> Uh not yet. I will inform you in chat or will mention if there is anyone to follow up but I have added uh their PRs um as we collected it from EC Discord. >> Sounds great. So as always want to uh remind uh authors of we will try to prioritize anyone who is live on uh this uh editor calls and if not we'll go with the um we will go with the provided agenda and thanks very much to ETH Cat Herder for the facilitation.

So this is moving from a draft to last call which is very weird. Um >> maybe it is >> let me yeah let me make make sure that >> Teddy knows this like usually it would go from draft to to review and uh and then uh review to last call. >> So unless there is a reason to expedite and ex take an exception I'm not seeing the discussion about exceptions. So I would say Teddy can you this is a firsttime user

and who is trying to move >> this is interesting uh >> there is an additional note about this particular PR I mean definitely a proposal cannot go to just last call after draft prop draft status it has to go through review before getting into last call. Perhaps the author does not know but it was also mentioned by editor u gajender that it is in the PR trying to add some reference link. I believe uh Gajender left some comment on editor's channel at EC Discord. Yeah. And >> yeah, >> there's a lot of uh weird things that we don't see from this call uh from this

full request. First of all, uh proposer proposer is not one of the author and that's a red flag. Um I don't know if authors will approve it. Uh definitely needs author's approval before coming in. A draft should uh a status change should be separate from content change. And third uh is it should move from from draft to review first and then review to last call.

Any other requests are exceptional? No. and should only be granted uh by call or action input. You see exception no consensus of EIP editors such as so I think we will re we will reject this um and then get move it back to to the author uh to the author of this pull request and then move to the next one.

This sounds good and it was really very good catch here. We can perhaps move on to the next PR which is for last call and the number is 224. >> One second. I actually this could be cat caught by EIP review bot >> I think. Right. I'm not sure if >> Let me Yeah, let me give the feedback to to to uh to Sam and see >> to see if this could be automated revealed by these break uh blocking conditions

could be automatically reviewed and caught by EIP bots. Is it called EIP bot or it's called EIP review bot? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that would save our several minutes from just now. >> Yeah, that's very true. >> Yeah, let me double check. I don't think I see this person's from the author list. So I'm I'm correct.

Yeah. And so that is done. >> Okay. The next one we should have a check box, right? So that when whenever we're done. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. But we have to stop that because now um there is an ACD bot which is running in the background and every time we check the check box it uh triggers multiple messages going out and people in the background. So we had to stop that checkbox and we are going by bullet points.

We should have a task list that act bots should be rever. Oh, this is a long time ago. Okay. So, let's take a look. Omni Remu is one of the author moving from review extension to limit transferability on counts. What is counts among NFTTS?

I'm not sure if I read understand transfer accounts. Oh, how many times a transfer can happen? I guess based on counts consider can like maybe it's just me. Do you think that counts uh is sufficiently disambiguous here? I mean it it definitely requires a little bit more explanation. I'm not sure if it is already there in the um body of the EIP.

How's that? Let me see if it will work. This is a bit useless and uh I do need to use it and consider elaborate it.

amount NFT that's still a little bit of like amount NFT of the same user or not. So let me actually comment key takeaways motivations and key takeaways transfer limit for a token. So, reference and let me actually show in full.

Transfer account transfer limit limit and count. Um, winter is set or update there is a lot of language issues. I think that's ambiguous to me. For example like uh let me see let me see the discussion whether people give discussion feedback.

Okay answer question. Yep. I think the great idea what why I'm not sure if it will limit the liquidity furtherly. This is you can see trading. Yeah, there is an unanswered question. actually just put it this way.

You can show when the RCM 721 transfer happens.

Do we still need an event of transfer account? And should we have a transver limit update it? Okay. see if that is answered in the rationale. I don't think rationale has has been answered.

okay. And fold down. And you rephrase the description. S N QS

and uh Okay. I think I gave editorial feedback on this one and then we can leave it to the author to act upon them.

Review of ERC Proposal 124

>> That sounds good. Maybe we can move forward with the next proposal to be moved in review status and the PR number is 124 on ERC repo. >> 124. >> Mhm. >> 124. Move to review. Okay, that's change of ordering. Let me

see. Okay, let's see what's being specified.

Restrict transfer. What? Okay. The envision usage is to wrap

over existing EI ERC11455. Uh, let me see. This is new and this is not included in

The functionality of in of fractionalized is not very obvious from the description of this ERC. The Also for maximum

interoperability research in to find existing ERC's that touch the fractionalize and and and uh discuss within this C2 to adopt that ERC or intentionally choose to disregard that ERC and use a new interface

approach and rationale. of such decision. Uh yeah, I I really felt like I need to have a best practice suggestions for >> Yeah. I believe also Sam also used to maintain this kind of list.

>> Yeah. Okay, research by your ERC's and answer adopt it or uh share the ration and now to why why not event. Okay, I'll I'll try to create one. Okay. Uh um partitionbased

Discussion on Partition-Based Flexibility

flexibility. Okay. How is the partition being done? That's a use case. Okay. So, how is partition being done? There are other existing ERC that touches the topic of token lock and UHF.

wife an hour conference. >> Okay. This search query can help Partition. Partition. I'm seeing I'm trying to see the partition.

One second. Oh, let's see.

let me see the partition. I'm trying to find out one of the main reason of main rationale and motivation for this is partition. So how can we partition wrap token from partition? Okay, how do you wrap put token for partition? How does that work? Partition ID to the main balance.

Yeah, I'm not sure if I understand this. Okay, another describes.

>> Okay, this is my feedback, but this I think it's enough to for a batch of updates. >> Sounds good. Maybe we can move on to the next one which is PR number one 22 23 in the year repo. >> 1 22 23 >> 37 files. Oh, it's all assets. Okay, nice.

Well, let me go back to the previous one and see if they provide the reference implementation as okay, they did. Oh, this is the how they provide reference implementation. Let me double check module.

Loun See?

Okay. All right. Now, now let's go to the next one. What was the number the poll request number again? Um, Victor. Uh, so I just have shared two PR numbers in chat. They are requested. The first one is PR number 1250 and it's requested by Margin the author of Diamond. >> Oh yeah. Uh yeah, >> Nick. Yeah, Nick. Nick Maj. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> So he he is here to propose a new proposal and this is the PR for that.

Unfortunately, he mentioned he could not join the call in case uh this proposal can get reviewed. >> Yeah, I've gave him a suggestion. Oh, almost the same time. Interesting. Yep. Yeah, that's what he needs to do. He needs to fix all these. Um yeah. >> Okay. And the other PR um which we just received is uh PR number 1226.

>> One second. Let me actually take a look. I think that's minor. So let me make sure he got a chance. And since I'm here, let me see if I can approve with condition. >> Yeah, sure. That sounds good. A change to solidity compiler includ assign structure to a storage location enables a new pattern which discuss 2535 standardized storage string literal. Oh, that's recommendations. Okay. What is

required? okay. This this is particular line. It's very verbal rational. I think I would approve this with

condition that uh get the validator happy. Yeah, I think u this is still in draft. So perhaps it can be updated when it uh is there to move into review status. But at least the proposal will get merged and people will be in a position to refer this PR. >> Yes. >> Yep. So the next one we have got is 1226.

Um seems the author may not be able to join here today. The proposal is for >> we have do do we have someone on on the call? I think >> uh no. >> Oh yeah. Mercy Mercy is here. Okay. >> Uh 122 what? >> 12262. >> Is that that one? Asian council. >> Okay. Someone who self. >> Yeah. Apparent individual is working.

>> Oh, that's Yeah, that's that's Yeah. two given we are approaching one uh 10,000 maybe we should start to accept only start to assign the IP numbers only when they moved into draft >> oh >> I was thinking like because numbers are increasing Quick. >> New. Completely new.

EIP Assignment Policy Discussion

What? No, we don't put Twitter in here. I don't think we need we put Twitter in here, but just to check the policy. I'm not sure. >> No, we we don't put I mean people can put Twitter for Yeah. Yeah, multi- aent console to resolve information queries in decentralizedly decentralized obser.

So get information in arbitration and build. Let me see. How does your your specification

mandate way being? or commit review adoption or discussion.

Let me see structure. I'm not sure. capability. Most of the are strings have one included in it. Would

there be limit practical or technical of the size of capabilities, practical Yeah. Resolution. Initiate resolution. Resolve resolution.

Get request. Get commits. Get reviews. Yeah, left a few also two things we would like to see interest

communities interest in adopting it rather than implementation. patience. Okay. This is my comment on this one. What what's the next? >> So the next one here we have got is 1225. >> Well, we covered 23 24 25 all three proposals today.

This is to move into review status. Yes. Yeah, mostly nominal and then I can see the background is the fuchsia updates. So that's why commons key stores the link is not happy. I think the links are okay. I'm not sure why they

change some section. Yeah. Okay. I think it's Okay, next one.

>> The next one is uh PR number 1242. Another one for review. Okay, just moving to review. Let me see. Let me take a read. Multi- version proxy. Remove version. Register version.

Interesting. Hello. Okay, I think it's okay. There's a

review. Uh I would call for Nick M to review to also share technical review. >> That sounds good. >> Yeah. Oh, congrats on moving to review. Blackboard review invitations of the following peer reviewers of Diamond ERC and also Diamond of Storage.

Uh, next. What's that? >> So, the next PR is a little bit >> One second. One second. Let me >> Okay. Uh,

next one. >> So, all right. The next one is the PR number is 1014. Uh, it is to move EIP, sorry, ERC 4337 to review status. But it is already in review status. Uh 4337 is in review. It's a Oh, that's cute. What What do you say? What do you mean it's already in review? >> Um I mean uh I think there were two PRs. Uh with one PR, the proposal has already been moved to review status. Perhaps we should close this one. Um if you open EIP ethereum.org, you may find the proposal is already in review status. So

Review Status and PR Management

there's no point merging this PR unless Okay. Should we close or any other change? Yeah. So unless there is any other change than review status, we can perhaps close this one. >> Uh what's the other ones that you mentioned? >> Um I don't remember the other one, but um uh if you check the um status on EIP.ethereum.org, it is already in review. >> Okay, let me do this. Maybe I can quickly check and let you >> Yeah, this is our work.

>> Uh I think we were interacting with this one, right? But uh which is then what is another one for I don't see >> I think it is 7 7922 is it the one? No, the last one which is merged on >> this one. Yeah, I I have that on on my screen now. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, it is already merged. Now, we we either have to close the existing one or just look if there is any other change than changing the status. Then we can perhaps >> this change has been merged on.

Can we update the branch and I mean it's a good thing now we can seven in review status >> right um yeah it would be very helpful if we can review the ones that's not merged like >> so I think like branches out of date should be excluded from our review list they should author should keep the branch out uh within the update within the branch I think not out of date yeah because things like this could easily be caught by by uh checking whether the branch is out of

date. >> Mhm. Yeah. So we might want to give a comment to author like what is the next step like as you have mentioned maybe we update the branch or just close the PR and come up with a new one with changes if you have any. >> Okay. Yeah. So sync sync with main branch or close this PR if there are no other updates major >> just wanted to um let the author be communicated before this is closed by any of the editor.

>> Yeah I kept it open. Mhm. Very well. Um I think I see a couple of more with Okay. I don't know if if you may be able to look into the steel part. So we can perhaps jump to the next uh um draft. The PR number is 1087 for universal compliance router. This is pending for a while. This one, right?

Discussion on Universal Compliance Router PR 1087

>> Compliance router. >> Okay. What's the latest update? >> It seems there are some changes added based on editor's recommendation and uh the file hasn't been viewed. this is a new EIP uh ERC. So, let me go check the numbering. 79 7210.

Okay, it's a different assignment. >> What does >> Am I Am I Am I typing it wrong? Okay, sorry. I think I I I click on the wrong wrong one. Okay. Okay, that's fine. So the the number assignment is correct. Now it should be dropped should easily be caught by by bot. I should really start falling.

Uh feature request. Oh yeah, another example. That was already filed. Uh oh, I couldn't link it. What happened?

Uh, I need a perm link actually. Oh no, doesn't work this way. Um, you see where is the perm link view file. Yes, that gives me a perm link. >> we introduced in about one new year.

Let's introduce Is compliance jurisdiction like an interesting idea? Okay. To leave security as dropped. Let's just see.

Community Interest in Adopting New Standards

Okay. No one has responded. >> Uh also would love to love to see the community interest in adopting this standard. other attempt to to implement or or discussion on the match what's the next one?

>> So the next one we have got u is uh I think you already have reviewed this agent council Oracle. So we can move on to even further 1101 which is nonfgeible account token >> almost the same situation >> I don't I think let me see let me see this different this this updates.

So oh the same situation >> the same situation means like uh they may have implemented the review comment by editors but still waiting to be merged as draft. They may have implemented the review comments by the editor but still waiting for it to be merged as draft. >> That's right. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh is out of date.

Let me run an update to see if it could be updated. Unless it's a new one. So 7 9781 one 7 978 one. Yes, that's right. nonf fungeible account tokens make smart contracts tradable as NFT doesn't have to

I'm yet to figure out There is our existing mintable ERC's addressing means creation check and can consider adoption or rationale to to create your get account

address. What is this MBA token? call it not agnostic guardian. It feels like this functionality can be fully achieved by simply adopting 721

missing from Y1 that's require a new YC See account mean get account address for example. and just be

replaced by Oh, no. I think we're at time, right? Yes. can just be achieved by I must be not falling achieved.

Okay. So also interested would love to see community aid sense of community interest. Okay. Uh I think that's it right. >> Yeah I think that's the time we have got today. Thank you so much Victor for reviewing all these proposals and for people following us on editing officer. will be back next week with another set of PRs to be reviewed until >> Sounds good everyone. Yep. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much. Thanks Puja and thanks uh East Cat Herders. >> Thank you. What's up?

Hello