EIP Editing Office Hour #88 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

Heat. Heat. Jesus.

Thank you. Heat up

here. Heat.

Okay. Oh, moving in progress.

Welcome to EIP editing office hour. This is meeting number 88 and is added on Ethereum/PM GitHub repository with issue number 1912. On agenda, we have one final proposal, one last call, a few review and then we have a bunch of drafts and miscellaneous. We are also joined by a couple of authors who may or may not have questions. It would be good to have the PR review. So maybe we can uh clear up the last call and final first and then we'll get into the review of draft proposals.

>> Yes, let's do it. All right to final. Okay. So this is a last call which is at that time at 17 February but it has been moved to final. Uh is this possible? I think not right because we should wait officially for a week. >> No, no. I think when the deadline Oh, February 17th. Yes, you are right there. >> That's a good catch. Thank you.

>> Okay, I will just comment that. >> Yeah. So, we will just wait for one more week and then we can bring it again. >> All right. Uh yeah, just comments. Okay. And this is the last call, right? And this is uh too short. I think >> that generally depends that generally depends on the date of the PR. We need to have plus 14 days.

>> Good point. Good point. I see. I see. Yeah. Okay. That's that would fit exactly. Okay. Yeah. Is this Yeah. Um maybe just as a general comment because Yeah. >> But I think if you would want to give an extension of one week by I don't know if force merging is possible right away. Uh that is also very much uh possible for the reason that people didn't know that this is in the last call because it was not merged as a last call PR if I'm making sense. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're making sense. Yeah. Because now it is

moving to last call and it looks like there's only like a window of a week. >> Yes, you are right there. >> Yeah. But then maybe process wise because now I will then say okay can you extend this by a week but then this will move to the next office hour and then it is like a week later when this change is made. So not really sure yet. Is this uh >> Yeah. So if you would want you can definitely extend the uh deadline by a week. Okay, let's see this process.

Yeah, like I'm I'm a bit afraid because if I move this to last uh sorry, if I say let's extend this deadline to like the 24th of February, then um if this doesn't happen like right now, then it will move to the office hour of next week and then or or of course if some other editor uh addresses this quickly then it can be merged earlier. Uh >> um we might want to check if this author has already enabled edits by editor and if that is enabled then perhaps you would be able to edit it right away and be able to merge it too.

>> I see. and and how do I see if it is uh allowed added by >> um I generally see that option enabled when we are making PR but that's >> I see I see I think this is like my rights for the Yes. Yes. Um okay what I will do is I will ask um okay can you extend the right above the rich text field that you're editing right now. Uh there's the

right then there's the preview and then the next icon next to header bolding and italics. Uh there's a little file diff icon. If you click that one it will let you propose changes. Uh no lower. Yep. Bingo. Right there. Yep. >> All right. Oh, that's a very quickly. >> Yeah. Um, and then if you have permissions, uh, yeah, so you have to start a review and then submit your review. Um, you might be able to remove the first line now as well. >> Um, I see. >> Yeah, maybe edit it directly. Then you hit start review, finish review or submit review. Um, but you should be able to either request changes, but you might also be able to click on it and press solve yourself immediately. So if you >> exit out of this

>> Oh, >> yeah. Yeah. The problem is that I I don't have rights to to to do this. >> Um >> yeah, maybe you can uh >> correct. Otherwise, there would be buttons showing up here to allow you to apply the change immediately. >> Yeah, exactly. >> But this should be fine as well. >> Yeah. Yeah, of course. >> Hope that helps. >> Yeah. Yeah. All right. Okay. Let's uh let's keep this on the side. Okay. Right. All right. Let's move to the next ones. So to review, right, this is fine.

Yeah, I think u I'm just checking but there we don't have any additional um rules for to move this to review, right? This is just uh fine if this is done by the author. Yeah, we just want to make sure that uh uh discussion links are there and uh they are not major changes. There could be some to-dos but that needs to be finished when we are moving out of review to last call. >> I see. Okay, then this is this is okay. My mouse has this weird problem that if I click there's like a 10% chance that my click does not go through. So, it's really annoying. All right.

Right. Okay. I will approve this one. But this is not the JavaScript. This is the JSON. Okay, this is a bigger one.

All right, this looks fine. Let's see for the assets in the ERC's. Is this correct that these go in the EIP folder and not in the ERC folder? H that's a good question. I'm not sure if I have the right answers for that.

>> Let me check. I have like uh Visual Studio open on another screen. Let me check for the other ERC's where this set folder is. It is. Yeah, those are like ERC folders. So I think this move is not correct to the EP score. No. Okay. interesting. Okay, I will not. Um because I'm not sure but I think this

will also yeah this just not correct with how the other seats are are written. Um yeah this this needs to change otherwise the assets will not Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. All right, with that >> let's see just coming back to this one because Yeah, this is now changed. Great.

>> Let's merge it. Let's merge it. Cool. Cool. >> Nice. Great. >> Cool. So, we are joined by a few authors. So maybe um we can escape the miscellaneous we can get back to it. I have shared the link in the chat for the next PR we have author on call. So in case you have any questions uh yeah we can take that one now. The PR number is 11265 on EIP repository. >> Yes I see. I see. Yeah, maybe as a as a more general comment about this process because um I think that we should review this from like the the last um by the oldest one

first. Um I will just do this by by this order you propose but I think it is more right to do this via the oldest one first uh instead of uh doing it this way. >> I got it. And uh uh just to let you know u I have arranged in the draft section from EIP board based on the oldest one first. So maybe after this we can take it. >> Okay. Cool. Yeah. >> Yes. >> All right. Let's see. Okay. This

Just a question on my on the recording. Can you also see my mouse or only my screen? >> We can see the mouse. >> Okay, that's that's cool. That's cool. That's an acronym for withdrawal credentials.

>> Yes. Yes. I I thought so. But um we need these acronyms to be defined. So if you can uh add this definition. So uh the format is withdrawal credentials and then uh after that you uh put in the brackets uh open bracket we see a close bracket. >> Yeah. Okay. We'll do that. >> Yeah. Cool. Cool. I would just uh for completeness just note that here. is are format like this with um capital letters or is it uh

>> yeah I have not noticed it before. So I don't think it is added in the standards yet. We can perhaps have one and add it. >> I see. And what's like the the stard format now? Would it be like capital letters or like not? I'm not sure actually. >> Just replace the acronym with the full notion. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That's pretty much it. Since since that's that's the only occurrence, I think it will be easier to use the full notation.

>> Okay. I I will just leave you to that then. Is that okay? >> Sorry. Go again. >> Yeah. You say just you want to use like the full name of this, right? Every >> Yeah. Yeah. Ju just just the full one everywhere. >> Yeah. Okay. If you can do that then uh >> Yeah, I'll do now. No worries. Cool. like this this minimum activation

balance I I think this is fine because you already define it like that it is 32 E um but this constant is taken from the consensus layer specification so >> yeah correct >> yeah yeah yeah so so maybe yeah I'm not sure yeah I think this I think this is fine yeah Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. It's more like about like future proving these things like if in the future like the minimum activation balance changes so it would maybe get lower or it would get higher then this uh EIP is not not correct or it doesn't it's maybe not entirely clear what this meant by this but yeah I'm not sure it might be uh I

think this is fine. Yeah. H yeah this is more about the contents I I will not block the EP for this but I think what you mean here is the fork block like let's say if the fork block is 1,00 then this might read that the first block in a blockchain after this EIP has been activated that would then be block 101 and I think that's not what you mean here right >> well I cannot like fight for the specific string because u like the

majority of this EAP is basically uh the skeleton has been taken from 702 and 7251 and they both used the same wording so I just here >> okay okay it's from 702 you say and which other one >> 702 and 7251 >> like both of them they utilize the same mechanics with execution layer requests to do changes to validate your parameters on consensus layer. So that's what that's where I took it from. I see.

I see. Okay. Yeah. This is this is fine. Okay. Okay. Interesting. >> Maybe when this is selected for any upgrade and when it is decided right before the upgrade if we can document that. >> Yeah. Exactly. And also if there is like a um well u a consensus mismatch then u people will go back to the EIP and they will ask for clarification. So that this is this is fine. All right. Okay. This looks good.

We're checking. Why do we need these? So the first one is uh the addition of oxo2 credentials uh 7685 is the general message uh bus from execution layer to consensus layer and 7732 which is EPBS. It's the addition of OXO3 credentials.

>> I see. I see. Okay. Let me quickly check Yes. Oh right. Of course. Yes. Yes. I see. I see. Okay. Let's check here. Latest change. Cool. Cool. Okay.

Yeah, this is original, right? Yeah. Cool. Very nice. It will be merged after the bot is uh is done. >> Thank you very much for the review. All right, let's go to the next one. >> So here um I wanted to share something. As you can see, there is a link added to EIP board uh in the draft section to draft.

>> So um um if you may click you would see that there is this uh uh tool EIPS insight u people have created. It gives a lot of options here for an editor to see like it is awaiting editor is the filter on PR status that we are using but I have collected all those new EIPs only there are other sections that we can pick up like tooling EIP1 related website related and all those stuff so uh they are based on the timing and that's how I have collected and added it on the agenda.

>> Yes. Ah, very nice. Yeah, great, great, great. >> I see I see. Uh, and so this M section um >> so miscellaneous section is again coming up from that list but that is based on EIP1 related only because EIP1 related are couple of them only and process related. So different filters different list and that's how we have prepared this. >> I see. I see. Okay, this is great. This is great. Okay, that's indeed. Uh, yeah, let's first move to this one because this is like been waiting for a year, I think.

>> Yes, that's like super high. Super high. >> Aha. Okay. This is also like a super big one, it seems. Right. My browser is even thinking is is big. Yeah. I mean generally there is a there's a lot of back and forth that happens on these type of PR and that's why they they are not merged for a long time.

>> Yes. But if this is the approach we would love to see on this office hour, I'm happy to keep the keep adding PRs based on this idea. >> Yes. Yeah. I I think I think I personally would say this is the way to go. The only problem is of course that that these EIPs they they are well they are very big. So it is very unlikely that I can review u what is it 9,000 well almost 10,000 lines of additions. uh or actually it's impossible. Um however the problem with that will be that people would um uh uh tend not to submit like super

large draft EIPs but instead make them like super small because otherwise it's like yeah but this will not fit in into the review time of like the office hour so then it will never get merged or at least that that's like one of the um the the consequences I would will see. Um but the question is like how do we solve that because obviously um these kind of should also be merged at uh at some point or at least they should get the time they deserve from the from the reviewers from the editors >> right yeah so uh initially my thought process was like this office hour could be a place where authors and editors can exchange their questions and queries and

this list that is already available reviewers can look into these PRs async if they find it too big to be reviewed in this course. >> Yes, I see. I see. Yeah, I think yeah, that is may maybe the the Yeah, that that that that makes a lot of sense. Um then the only thing is then I would personally also need to make more time to also start leaving these things async which I will do. Um but this is nice then also yeah to go to this office hour uh agenda and then check these EIPs async and then um yeah come to this office hour and then maybe also live uh in sync like exchange these these type of questions. Okay. Um yeah

>> okay let let me actually do that. Let me just open all these u these ones. Okay. And this one is like super big. Right. This looks more doable. Okay. Yeah, that's because you are actually

right about the point that um people at this office are like I also know that there is someone I don't know who this was. Um let's see. Okay, we we did this one. This one will removed. >> So, we are also joined by another author and I shared the PR number in the chat um which is next on the list as well. Um uh126 maybe we can take a look at this one and then we'll go with whoever are present today.

>> Yes, let's uh let's do that. Yeah, that's that's a yeah, I think this is like a great approach um to async go over these these um PRs which need attention like over the the oldest ones first and then at the office hour like do this like this sync exchange. >> Yeah, I mean this generally helps authors also get clarity if something is blocking. So if a PR receiving multiple comments from editor then he can join the call and try to clear up it in one call and then get it merged.

>> Yes. Yes. That that makes a lot of sense. All right. Yeah. So hi protocol whisper Chris Ma. And hi. Yeah I'm here. Hey. Hey. Yeah, this actually looks great. Let's

let it. >> Thank you. Yeah, I have one question though. Uh, any in specifications? What shall I put? Um, it's my it's my first EIP, so I don't like but it's okay that I leave it in blend. Uh what what do you mean specifically like what should be in the specification? >> Yeah. Um of the constants um I saw the templates as a specification but it's okay if I only like put the constants um what it done there actually put like some text around it.

Uh no I like I mean this this is fine like these uh no you always refine like what these constants are and if you reference them to later in the EIP then they are defined and you already stated these are to be determined. So yeah >> okay thank you. >> Yes thank you for the review. Yeah. >> I think there is one more thing that perhaps could have been added here under the specification section. There is mention of some RFC's. I I believe I'm trying to take a look at the EIP template right now. If it was under the specification, yes, the keyword says must, must not and things like that, you can add that. That generally helps. So

the entire text you can copy paste from template and keep it. >> Ah, okay. That that's a good point actually. Yeah. Okay. I see. Yeah, that's that's >> Yeah. So, um that's a good point by Puja. Um let's see because I think it's almost everywhere. I would just put like a suggestion there that you can directly add it so we can merge it. Um let's see this. So that's a good

I'll add this here as a suggestion. This is what you meant right? >> Yes. Yeah. We can we can also include the link of RFC's if possible. >> Ah this that's actually a good point because I wanted to ask about this um because I checked most EIPs do not have like this URL in it and some of them have. I think the one which I just reviewed not not this one but the other one uh actually has these uh URLs in them. Let me actually directly put the correct URLs there.

Right. Yeah. This Yeah. You mean this right to add the URLs to the >> Yes. Yes. Yeah. That generally gives us like direct uh access to the file that we are suggesting that Yeah. We have described these must must not and other things here. >> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Yep.

Yeah, if you could supply this suggestion then I can uh can approve >> Awesome. I'm doing that right now. >> Cool. >> Next. Next we are joined by Prem. Prem I know you have a bunch of PRs. Do you want us to go through one by one like as on the list or if you have anything in specific >> which is the next number? Uh, next is 1062 on the ERC section. We can go with first one on the ERC section.

>> Let's see. Ah, yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Can't remember the P the PR number, but I'll remember the ERC number. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, that is next on the list from like, you know, waiting a time date. >> This is this is not mine. uh this is time based um addition of uh items or people may have requested it right here in the bottom. So I know we have got only 10 minutes more.

So if uh if there is any question or if someone wants to get any other PR reviewed immediately we can perhaps take that one. >> Well I if you can do one of mine that would be great. >> Yes. Yes. Do we have like a PR uh number? I need to find it quickly. Wait a minute. Okay. PR. Um yes, minimal agent registry and that is PR463.

>> Yep, I see it. Okay, let me first do to check this one. Yes, yes, yes. All right, let's merge this one. Okay, well that was fast enough. Yeah. So that was the the sorry the only PR. Um I believe

What about 1476? >> 1476 to to uh Do you want me to review that one first? Oh no, I have a comment by Sam. Sorry, I have I I have to reply to comments on >> Oh, okay. Yeah, I will go back to the 46. >> No worries. No worries. Oops.

Yeah, I will just make a tiny suggestion here because we have like a stale uh guide um which says that the abbreviation should come after the um u the definition of the word. So this has to be flipped. I was Yeah. Yeah, I think it is only this uh this

small suggestion and then um then we can merge it. >> Thank you. >> Cool. Cool. Let's see. You can maybe do another small one. Um did you add more uh ERC's right? >> Many. Yeah. So um what is 80048? Uh I have to remember the I use the uh PRS 4.

Okay. This is >> I I think the metadata one is also uh frames 1259 >> 1259. >> Yeah. That's 84. That's 848. Yes. If you could uh apply like this this change then uh I can also approve uh approve this one. I will post it in the comments this one.

So the next one is one okay no it's not for him it's for someone else's I think 1475 has been requested in the agenda item. Maybe if you can quickly take a look at it while Prem is looking for other PR. >> Yes. So which which one was it? >> 1475. >> 1475. Yes. >> Yeah. It is requested in the comment section of agenda by author. >> Ah yes yes. All right. I have actually did I think I checked this one today.

Ah yeah I remember remember this one. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yeah. For clarity, because people might now think, why are you scrolling like super fast through this ERP? Uh, I checked this ERP I think this morning. Did not leave a comment on this, but I think I saw like no problems here. Yeah, this one was Yeah, this one. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay, that's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just just just for

clarity here like uh I've I've read this EP this morning and I saw no problems with it. I don't know why I did not leave a comment on this earlier but uh just for everyone's clarity that I'm not just like going like super quickly through this ERP and then approving it but I have already checked this. So I will approve this one. All right. And that's the time we have. Quickly checking the frame. Uh if you have made the push, we can perhaps merge it or >> that can be uh done later as well.

>> Oh yes, >> I'm doing my best, but I noticed a couple little issues. >> Okay, no worries. U maybe you can just ping us in the um Discord channel and that could be merged sooner rather than later. Otherwise, if it would not be merged before the next meeting, I'm definitely going to bring it back in the agenda. Thank you. I'll work on it. >> All right. Well, thank you everyone for joining us here today. Thank you for taking our time. I think we made good progress here today. Um >> people can join us on the next meeting next Tuesday at 1600 UTC that is going to be EIP only. Uh so with Kachendra Singh so we may not be taking ERC

related PRs there. But yeah, if you have any EIP related PR, please feel free to add it. Thank you everyone for joining us here >> Thanks everyone. Heat up here.