EIPIP Meeting 66

Transcript

welcome to AP I'll be meeting 66 I have shared agenda and chat we have a few items listed from the open pool requests and issues side um the first item here is open items from the past meeting but I think that most of them have been added by Sam already as the issues where we haven't reached consensus so maybe we can start with the with the items those were partially discussed and are listed here again so website add Mad Jacks I believe it was discussed in the meeting last meeting as well but um uh I don't know like client was not there at the time and it was only Greg and Sam which seems to be on on board

anything specific we would like to discuss about this proposal yeah and if I remember correctly it wasn't tested at the time like we were not sure of that right right so I can't see panda on the call um I'm not sure if we have any further updates on that so maybe we can skip this one unless uh anyone else on the call has anything to add or share I think we should just turn it on I mean the rate because it doesn't work we don't like it and we turn it off again I think it's pretty low low impact so it

is sounds okay to me okay anyone has objection go for it thanks for support cool um the next one is a CI disabled certain levels from becoming Steel should um

make it fail or not um I think we've been discuss in the CR AP okay I was panda in the name of the Matrix Hospital meeting so they don't miss the last two no I don't think so okay I feel like you should talk about trying to make a time that Panda can also come because it's panda is going to be one of the most active editors conversation agreed I have actually added that in the item number two as a change in eipib meeting time though we recently have changed uh from 15 to 1400 but

um obviously we are open to thoughts here I don't know I can't see Panda or Victor Victor mentioned in the chat that he may be fine with somewhere around 1500 or 15 30 UTC Sam do you have any preference or like him maybe we can figure it out a huge problem right now but um yeah I agree totally agree with that maybe I can start a form or reach out to editors individually and try to collect

it and submit it before the next meeting okay um sorry just to be sure Again Sam what are your thoughts on like uh number two CA disable certain levels from becoming we continue discussing this in the beer itself exactly yeah okay cool third one here is update EAP one fixed backward compatibility typos again it is with Hannah paper oh I think backward compatibility and backwards compatibility are both

acceptable and it doesn't just change it uh I agree okay I'm just making a note of that agreed on the car okay cool moving on the next one is a list of process issues that we haven't reached consensus yet the first one is uh update eip1 referenced ercs by ERC Dash all right I I think we have been

discussing this for quite some time I'm just trying to pull again yeah sure we can keep it I I just I think Matt and I have awesome opinions on this and I don't think anybody's gonna be here to you know break a tie fair enough maybe I can bring it up in the next meeting if uh assumingly we have more editors and reviewers joining in with the new change in time so I'll make sure to bring it up again five two seven three next one is a five six one four that is the update EAP one clarify when to use request section I feel like we did

discuss it a bit in the past anyone having foreign against like when to have it so if yeah so if I remember correctly from the past like it was mentioned that requires is a section that is there um it's not applicable to all eids but for particular eips where someone is trying to reference something from the past or existing eips they must mention

it as in request section the number and we generally recommend to have that proposal which is under the required section must be having status of final please correct me if I miss anything yeah so so that last part is true this is whether or not we want to require every little VIP requires that it was just a certain one yeah that's a good point okay

I'm enough okay sure yeah um as per my understanding uh requests were generally used when it is uh maybe either the extended version of an existing EIP or using some part of any other Erp like this this standard won't work if uh the project hasn't implemented the earlier EIP so that was the thing based on my understanding I don't know like and if you have any particular thoughts on when to mention eips here

yeah I mean I don't think that we should change that cool okay then maybe we will keep it open for a few more times to see if any editor has different thought to add there all right we are also joined by picture now before we move here let me try to bring this item again so if he has any thoughts probably we can capture that so Victor we were talking about the

requires section in an EIP number is 5614 um it is clarify when to use request so uh looks like the general agreement is when we are using an eip's extension or sending a proposal for an EIP extension or the present proposal which is using any other EIP in final status must be mentioned there okay I thought the original uh consensus that we needed we are we were near was that if it's mentioned in the specification section we will require that to be required and then elsewhere

with the authored a fifth question is that uh if this meeting reached a different sentences and I think that's just the trail indicator of what we actually want like I don't think that you could mention an EIT in the specification section unless it's required as part of the specification but that's like a separate thing like if I haven't mentioned oh this is similar to the VIP I shouldn't include it requires I should just not have that statement and the specification so the thing that we actually wanted we want required to only be you know required if you have to have you have to implement that VIP to implement the uh want to describe yeah that argument I agree with you

in like plan I actually don't know when you go buy that stuff so um my understanding about our views on uh specification is that specification that particular section should be as free as possible and not mention anything unnecessary in your very simple it's like the other one that it is like the other VIP should actually go to rationale examples is that a good understanding yes I definitely agree with you I'm just saying that I think that if we say if you were describing the IP in the

classification section it must be required is not getting to the underlying thing the original it's like that we want here we want the AP to only be described and require if it is actually required that's like the fundamental goal of that session and if we say it has to be only like only if it's in the specification section then I think you know we're just sort of like touching the surface of what we want yeah I I respect that uh if there's the consensus to the team I just I just feel that uh record making the vacation minimum plus required when up here I require a VIP won't appear in

verification is the probably the easiest for argument to be participate I can see these examples when you when we basically describe it as like when it's depending on something for example uh yes the young eip1191 adding the new check Dom because we think it's depending on the ice the ipicu 55 in your original check from without considering the channel ID I think on the argument can be made both ways and then I think that way we reduce our um productivity in terms of reaching containers whether one should be

disappointed or not because I just want to put that into consideration but I do expect the uh the 10 30 fish supply additives so I'm just trying to understand here from where I'm hearing looks like both of you are saying the same thing it's just that I'm trying to understand what is the difference of opinion or thought here so the idea is like if someone is mentioning any proposal in specifications that means the new proposal which is on the table cannot be implemented unless the earlier proposal which is being mentioned in the

specification is already implemented uh that's my understanding and if that is the case that proposal the earlier proposal must go into the required section I am looking into eip1191 that you just shared so here we have two eips in require section 55 and 155 so um they have mentioned uh 50 155 in specification as well as eip-55 yes they did mention both so both are in required sections so if you can help me understand what's the difference here didn't mention vip155 in specification section you only

mentioned the eip-55 because they use the same algorithm so in that particular case 1155 was not um 155 was not required so when we say one night one one night one adding chain ID to mix tape kick some achieve uh it achieves uh protection on things on the play we play attack but it actually didn't require 155 which uh at least I think based on the specification if it says however that

Chennai leaves system of chain ID is a requirement then definitely this one is um it is depending on 155 but since the specification didn't mention it we can just ask to remove it um so I'm just using the example code just provide to see to provide an a demo of editorial feedback for author and I think that that's actually a simple rule to remember to propagate between editor and also to help authors the Judgment here is that whether chain

ID is a taken for granted thing if people think in the AIP in the development of the later eiph Chen ID if it's taken for granted pain then people should assume that that chain ID has defined by 155 should be considered uh non-required because it was already taken for granted but if we do but if we don't think they are taking for granted many other things like hot works should actually be required and that goes on and on my take but I I I do respect that if we want to

just keep it a little bit vague or giving me way of more uh depression virus editor I'm okay with that either so yeah depending on the word right so um it looks like uh there is no strong recommendation of changing of the wording existing wording in eip1 so we can probably let it live like that and if we come across any new proposal in the future where um we might need more clarification then probably we can bring up this this discussion again because all these eips that we discussed so far are like already in the final status and eip1191 is actually having both the eips in

requires section if that's okay sure cool so now we can uh we don't need to change the wordings over there and we can let it live all right yeah thank you and um we can probably move ahead the next number is five five one seven uh that is update eip1 add finalized date to the Preamble um we discussed about it in the past if I remember correctly right now the templates suggests only created date however the created date is is not the

date when it is merged so having the date finalize date when the EIP gets into final status I guess that's the proposal here thoughts if any if we need this field to be added I really don't want to add the field but I would absolutely love to have an upgrade field yeah like I would love to have some kind of a field that describes the state on ethereum the block number was activated in like that kind of thing um and yeah I don't think finalized things is probably going to think it's not a good prophecy for that information I think a state on ethereum and block number is only applicable to one

particular category that is core and it may not be there for any other including interface and networking because they can be implemented on client level at different point of time so we may want to look into something which is common for uh all types and categories to ERC for fun but it really is not useful to correct you yeah right I mean not if you're opposed to it I'm okay with dropping in I I think this

was originally requested by Mikhail uh um materialize that his request but if yeah if uh if your poor editors are like not in favor of this I I I'm happy to enjoy the request I would love it actually all for on for EIP I think that's fine but I I really don't think there's something that we need for four categories actually I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share here as I mentioned in one of the meetings that I'm also looking into automating the process of eit's insight that we are working on

currently so in that we came across this field I'm I was trying to collect data for the past eips so when it was introduced as of now as of date what we do is like whenever an Eid is merged for the first time as draft to eip's GitHub repository then we add it as EIP added in that particular month but we were having hard time finding uh this information for old eips because we have to actually go by every comic number so we have to go to Every IP go to its first commit and then collect the date from there one of my resources what they what he tried to do is like collect the created day but obviously the date it was created and the date it was merged

was not not in the sink so I was also thinking of having one date in which we can be finding it like everywhere so if it is useful when that proposal is merged as draft for the first time that could be the first time when it entered into the eip's repo if we can have that date instead of create a date or finalize because finalization can be there for core EIP we can track when an upgrade is activated and that particular EIP was considered for that upgrade so we can definitely have the final date because we can collect it from there um yeah any thoughts there I mean any suggestion solution for it

I'm sorry I don't understand why do we want the date that it was first out of the Republic words [Music] um so uh for creating this Eid is Insight dashboard we are collecting information of how many eips were merged as draft or as final or change of a status in a particular month so um draft is the first status when an EIP is added to GitHub repository so I was hoping if we can have that field definitely it's a it's something that we can collect by scraping data from GitHub uh but if we can have it in eaps as well I I think you are coming from like a collecting that kind of uh

reasoning and and that that makes um the time to merge uh helpful I wonder if we can kind of lead to a simple simpler uh version one is the uh created which should actually be the first day it was merged and uh also the um also a finalized day for non-core to be the date that uh it's announced to be finalized because ercs and others in other VIPs are using final status to declare that they are ready to be implemented but core is actually going to de facto

um de facto adoption mechanism which means only client adopted means it's final so or maybe we can just say for core we will use that final day to to match with the the hard work it happens would that be helpful sorry I could not catch the last part of you like for poor you mentioned something I'm proposing for final uh the non-core uh use the day that it was declared uh final for core use the date of the merge yeah sorry not upgrade of the yeah use the the date of the heart of the upgrade or

hard work would that be helpful I will I'll differ it to record editor I mean it's better but it's still the wrong data type for what's happening there so we um I'm okay of adding data types like block number or name of upgrade do you think that would be helpful yeah I mean those two values are more what we're looking for for Tori IDs but I'm just trying to think how to deal with this and uh

like Airway across the IPS now we're like starting the prognitive purpose of how many fields there are for your excuse me like what field there are for eign until we find it more urgently necessary then like with basically I heard what you say is basically making trade-off between adding new film creates more complexity for Preamble versus not having a few reviews with the visibility and some of the cases and it seems like in your mind knowing the finalized phase

is not super helpful to justify the the more value is introduced to the Korean role I don't know if I would say like it's not valuable I think that right now it's very valuable to know what upgraded Corey Ike is I just don't know if it's also not that valuable to have my highest date for years okay how about this let's uh let's pause the request to add final I say let's prioritize adding what is uh adding the the upgrade available to the uh to the Core

so that you don't have to think about it every time when talking about finalizing and then we can decide whether your client might say is helpful at all for all eisens I I lean towards not having one day that is seems to be common but people constantly come and ask hey why do core doesn't have it things like that I just want to ten percent across different types yeah so okay here is my proposal uh I will create a new VR add a final and add a add a new field says this is the upgrade for the core and because people are

easily understand it only applies the core we will not have access question asked competitors are happy with that and through that and then we talk about where the finalized should be will be useful or not how about that these are my proposal um I think there are reasons why we don't have um upgrade and block number generally in eib template um but I think the idea is that you know if we somebody were to Fork the chain or start a new ethereum then embedding the the kind of governance information the EIP might be a bad thing um

because like it makes it extensive to our chain as opposed to any source of ethereum I'm not sure if that matters so much now with his mistake and all that but um yeah I don't know it's a good arguments that's a good idea I'm sorry you can organ if you can't afford our repository and figure out how to remove that I don't know what to tell you you shouldn't make it we shouldn't make it easy to work and then make our lives worse because of this like sorry at the Port button I think I I think that is that has a philosophical assumption that I agree a

lot uh also I have I don't know uh if I have these movies of that light I think you mentioned somewhere that you are thinking that if you're an EIP trying to govern the ethereum and particularly learn it which I think at least in my intuition I agree and in that argument we should not it's not very helpful to assume the other foreign maybe people agree but I also in a very small voice in my heart that I think is Korean movement is potentialized and

then when we say the movement it also applies to any thing so if they want to adopt it they can use it so that's a small voice now coming back I I have another like more practical question for you guys is let's assume that you're going to have shot in very soon what happens is from charities allowed the block uh allow some of the uh the upgrades first then in the other shutting on top later do we use no no we'll always have one

um global Walker Squad number to refer to we'll never get into a scenario where I mean sharding like this the idea has changed a lot over the last several years but like the shards are now Layer Two so it's a layer two upgrade to the different point that's not a concern of the board that we call I can see in the old one in the outshotting mechanism it is possible I can see that in dank shock is much unlikely that they will have a different they will follow different validated rules but I yeah maybe that um that that's thinking too much because that's a very

un mattress on the scenario that hasn't happened so if you're all in favor of uh of having a upgrade I will create a new field and and you can comment on it would that be helpful yeah I mean I'm okay with at least three other proposal for it I think it'd be great okay let me create new uh you you can put on how the old one sounds good thank you um but one last question before we move ahead right now uh the created field is there in the EIP template and that is for the date of

creation when author originally created or maybe some uh sent the pull request is it possible to have that replace have that date replaced with the date of March I'm checking if that can be done with the help of Bot existing Bots okay so we can maybe create a pull request for the I mean issue for that like implementing that and one but uh before we do that any objection on that and what do people think about it like changing the created date as the date of March as draft in EIP depository is that

a fair yeah I think you know that's fine yeah okay then I will create an issue um which bot would it be times but I mean like eapw or each part okay okay so we have to create an issue to change the date of creation of a merged EIP as draft and the date will be the date of March I'm saying this for a record so people who is documenting their notes may be

able to capture it as an action item but uh oh it's already there cool enough okay then I will try to follow up with Jose if he is working on it or not fair enough and about this I think the final decision here is that 5517 will be closed and Victor will come up with a new proposal it's not you're putting on the hold okay what was it uh but uh yeah I will come up with a PR for sure oh cool looks like the next one five seven two three we already discussed a bit earlier so move on to five six nine six that is

update EAP template add EIP patent waiver thoughts here looks like it was proposed by Panda pep fair enough we can bring it back in the next meeting when panda is around nine six I'm making a note of all of those let's move on to the last one here because the merge mat Jax is already merged

the number is five six one seven at EIP 5617 non-transferable token standard why is that listed here as a for discussion um oh cool yeah that's right thank you for reminding that Sam yes um so here EIP number was an issue um looks like uh this proposal was earlier created and editor has some concern yeah are we on on board there that we can use the earlier number

uh yeah so it looks like the original author approved button remember it just looks like nothing for the um so let's move on with this one item number two is past meeting discussion continued uh we discussed about change in the meeting time um I know we are short of editors on this call I will try to reach out to them

individually however Victor proposed 1500 or 15 30 UTC so if people are in support of either of those they can signal that on the Discord Channel um 15 30 15 37 UTC right now no it is 1400 currently so yeah earlier we used to have it at 1500 but um in the last survey probably six months ago and it has a shared signal that they would be interested into

having it at 1400 so it was moved to 1400 but if people are fine moving it back to 1500 we can do that which is that we want to be having more attendance here on the calls so yeah whatever works I have a conflict right now 1500 degrees I don't know how long running but I probably can't do it okay okay I I guess we also for other editors so they're not available

yeah I will do that I will come up with a form simple form so we can collect available best times I think it's the island they frequently notes I mean at least I have not seen him for over a year maybe in that case uh yeah okay

okay and the other item from the past was um about get power so um we were joined by one of the team members of GitHub in in one of the earlier meetings uh recently they have reached us stating that the git pop for EIP editors are almost ready they are working with panda peep on that so they mentioned that we have created a bot bot on GitHub that Panda peep will tag with the list of authors of each finalized EIP

and if someone was an author of a given EIP in the given year they will be awarded that Year's get power I wanted to check here with the team like people present here if anyone has any strong objection or thoughts or suggestion on this like this can be managed differently or they should not be done at all I think that they can do whatever they desire as long as you don't reference right so for it yeah please go ahead about the important

or that's right yeah I don't have to I cannot do uh surfing so if there is a boss that pays um in the comments appears into guitar because Burger season I think yes they're good why would they have a bot posting on every PR so the architecture that um I think was discussed a while ago and it's been a while since I'm a little fuzzy on it is um get pull-up has a bot already that um you can arbitrarily like give Co-op

people uh by taking in a comment and then Panda pip was going to write a bot for our repository that tag please get a co-op on okay yeah I'm not okay with that foreign having it posting on every PR I already got enough notifications yeah and it's also like what happens when you have some foreign um it's not available

[Music] um feedbacks collected from EAP editors if there are any objection or not um so far if I understand correct this is to be done by Panda Pete so I'm assuming that it is a work to be done manually so every time Panda peep is dragging the box then only that will be activated maybe we can bring it in the next

meeting again with these comments registered as like not in favor of activation but let's see if they have um other ways to convince editors or come to a consensus whether to go by this or not okay so looks like Victor has added another number 5466 which if you would like to explain this thing suggest that EIP use rfp8174 yeah please go ahead yeah the original required

recommendation we have is rfc2119 which by iepf uh which that uh suggests using must not required and all those keywords document uh the intention when describing the standards um the ifsc iot uh 2119 itself says it is upgraded it is updated by the 901 81754 so I created pull request to upgrade the recommendation for us to use the new one it requires um all the editors uh approves if therefore added and this thing is not uh I think I I happen to see that download

like character generally okay but he didn't issue a form of you know 30 days ago so I want to see if I we should uh go ahead and do it see that we could Rock consensus or do you want to wait for Alex and go into approve it so I'm totally fine marching it um so uh for the time being you can't talk at any point it is linked that oh but the the is that okay to link to ietf

I thought that was that was the agreement people's age too when mentioning how you see if I asked to aim all different other VIPs see that didn't it didn't like that particularly for the problem it doesn't it doesn't really yeah it doesn't work each one or yet you can play Maybe no no it is right because you you all have your eyes um and I'm I'm okay with doing the link but I just wanna

just for now for now okay I did but look I'm running up an EIT on how to deal with Sterling and um well I'll post that in terms of the next video I have one as well um you want to add to it or we can like you're talking about the um solution because it happened yeah I'm trying to consolidate there yeah yeah um yeah yeah I'm trying to find the least the

maximum agreement here and then leave everything out to additional discussion that was my plan oh yeah okay I'll link it there and then I'll I'll comment yeah I think this has taken a lot of our editorial cycle for the traffic whether it's a criminal games um so let me okay you want it to be removed just for now right I can I can remove it

yeah just just pronounce check it out okay okay yeah I I am okay with that okay we have modeling we have existing name of Teen Titans yes in line 116 uh EIP had a preamble already have our attitude you really want it to be moved to me because you want it to be interested um just right now if if anything Eid like if the link is in an actual EIP other than eip1 or there's one other one that has a reception ew will not let you

merge the pr so oh you don't so just for a template right yeah exactly I just feel that people were copying it with the network would not run into this problem okay yeah I'll I'll I'll I'll thank you that's a good point sorry and I just need red and strong Pro externally personally external links yes all right let's move on let's move on um in that sense of time we have just 10

minutes left though we don't have many more items we are good by the time um the next one here is item number three EAP bot I think the main concern that was shared with me earlier in that Catholics reading was um that uh we are not getting a clear understanding of what all issues to be worked on or not for example issue 65 that we just discussed briefly to have the created take looks like uh [Music] because they wanted to work on it but panapeep is also working on a tool which will probably cover this issue so we may

not be able to uh we don't need to work on this issue separately that's a good thing to have I wonder where we can track that maybe we can chat with panda to provide updates on the issue there or maybe in the eipap meeting yeah none of them are here so I will take it offline yeah we'll check with both of them next is the eaps inside for the month of October today is this 5th of October we do not have ton of eaps um

to be discussed for this month so far we have two eips that move to the draft um that move from draft to review status and there are a handful of eits added in the repository in the form of pull request we hope to see more coming up as new draft I have added information for proposals in the eits inside hack can be added to the agenda next is a EIP editing officer we organized office hour yesterday

it was uh fine we tried to look into the proposals the pull request and we were also joined by a couple of authors thanks Sam for conducting this officer I have a question here which I actually have added there for the next meeting agenda as well like do we want to have this meeting for 30 minutes giving q a because most of the time it is you are reviewing the proposal live which is good thing to have uh but yes there I mean I'm happy to keep it for an hour okay but if we want to like [Music] yeah I think we can do it for 30 minutes

like for first q a and if we have any author on the call staying longer because we could not address their problem then probably it makes sense to extend the call but generally speaking if we keep it for 30 minutes and address those questions and you do a reviewing at your own Canadians does that sound reasonable okay so we can make that change either Vector you can update the calendar or I can do that it's fine uh I'm not following can you upgrade the update on the calendar okay I will do that cool um that's it um people can follow the recording from the past meeting a link is added and we also have added agenda for the next

meeting which is about two weeks from now last one is review action items from earlier meetings um looks like we had only one action item from the past meeting which was for Victor to create a PR to further discuss on the copyright fever section do we have the pull request if you would like to add the number here for discussion maybe in the next one I I don't have it yet okay not a problem this one that showed up um cool and um yeah I think that is all um we do not have EIP number bought yet

right I wonder if okay cool I wonder if anyone would like to pick up this thing and maybe create a bot to allocate EIP number we discussed this issue in the past so if anyone has any question like people following this recording if you are interested to work on this particular issue and you have questions feel free to reach out and you can probably post your questions on EIP editors channel on ethereumcare Justice card so that's all for meeting today anyone would like to bring up anything cool

so let me collect some more consensus for the next meeting time and I will share the information on um cathodes Discord as well as the eth RNA it is called both places so people following either of the channel for this eipap meeting may be able to join us in the next meeting based on whatever AP editors present thank you everyone for joining us today hope to see you in two weeks have a good one thank you