| S.No. | Agenda | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| 101.1 | Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics | Need editor's approval [Update EIP-7523: Move to Last Call ethereum/EIPs#8251] (ethereum/EIPs#8251 & Merged [Update ERC-777: fix typo ethereum/ERCs#182] (ethereum/ERCs#182) Approved & Merged |
| 101.2 | Update to a Withdrawn Proposal ethereum/EIPs#8255 | No Pull Requests are accepted for Withdrawn proposals [General policy] |
| 101.3 | Update to Final Proposal | ERC-1046 :@SamWilsn left a comment to make individual PRs for each EIP. ERC-6672: No specific Call for Input but @xinbenlv will create a Call for Input for general policy around updating authors for Final EIPs. ERC-7201: @SamWilsn will create a Call for Input for this Pull Request. |
| 101.4 | Call for Input | #317– will make a PR to EIP-1 to reflect the decision. #318 : Open till March 20th, Editors may leave a comment. #320: Open till March 21st, Editors may leave a comment. ERC-6492: Implementation #321 Open till March 22nd, Editors may leave a comment. EIP-1193 #325 Open till April 7th, Editors may leave a comment |
| 101.5 | Other discussions continued or updates from past meetings | Working Group Charter - In an in-person meetup, it appeared that people are in favor of keeping only 3 repositories as of now [EIP / ERC / RIP] and not requiring new repositories to have individual working groups. The sub-working group charter may need to be redefined. Web Page Rendering to include EIPs, ERCs, RIPs – It will not be affected and will be able to pull data from RIPs repo. |
Pooja Ranjan 00:00: Welcome to EIPIP Meeting 101. This is issue number #316 on Eth Cat Herders EIPIP GitHub repository. On agenda we have some open issues and pull requests to be discussed. We'll look into Call for inputs and some discussion updates from the earlier meetings. There is also EIPs Insight. And yeah we'll perhaps take a look at the action item if pending from the previous meeting. So starting with the first item, I have listed down a few Pull Requests which requires editors approval. The first one here is a PR number is #8251. I wonder anyone has any thoughts on this One.
Lightclient 1:10: Looks good to me.
Pooja Ranjan 1:17: I mean it was proposed by Sam. So we were wondering if we could get another editors approval because this is to move into the last call.
Sam 1:29: Awesome! Thanks man.
Pooja Ranjan 1:33: Very well. From there we can just quickly checking with editors. Is it good to be merged or any other thing we would like to do here?
Sam 1:43: Yeah it was approved.
Pooja Ranjan 1:46: Okay perfect. Yeah good to go. Very well. So the next one is to update ERC 777 and it is on the ERC GitHub repository number is #182. It seems to be a typo for a final proposal.
Sam 2:14: Yeah I think we have enough approvals now so we can just merge this one. Thank you. So I think we're good to move on to 8255.
Update to a Withdrawn Proposal Pull Request
Pooja Ranjan 2:51: So that's correct we can move on to 8255. This is a withdrawn proposal and someone is trying to make changes to withdrawn. Any thoughts around merging this one?
Sam 3:11: What are they changing in this one typos. Sure yeah it's fine. I don't have any problems with this.
Pooja Ranjan 3:26: Yeah I was just wondering the Proposal is already withdrawn we know that it is no going to be moving forward what's the point of engaging in any kind of.
Sam 3:34: Yeah I think that's okay.
Victor 3:40: I'm okay either way if no one is strongly preferring to move on. I don't think we can just leave it as now.
Pooja Ranjan 3:53: Yeah I mean, I believe it.
Gajinder 3:57: I agree because I mean this is ethereum Improvement proposal. So if it's not going to be adopted there's no point doing it.
Pooja Ranjan 4:07: Right and it could be a way of you know just getting contribution but it's not like adding any value.
Gajinder 4:23: Yeah!
Pooja Ranjan 4:24: Yeah that's correct.
Gajinder 4:26: Yeah! Token ring is yeah an honest farmer.
Pooja Ranjan 4:32: All right. So for summary I'm assuming that we are moving ahead with not merging this proposal because this is an update to an withdrawn proposal. And this could be from like as a policy. We are trying to suggest here that we would not be accepting Pull Request for any withdrawn proposal. Is that the fair understanding?
Victor 4:57: Unless it's from the author or unless someone is trying to revive and withdraw EIP which is allowed in EIP 1. I think.
Pooja Ranjan 5:06: No withdrawn is not allowed to be revived only stagnant are.
Victor 5:12: Oh right. So can author revive one themselves?
Pooja Ranjan 5:17: No withdrawn means that is.
Victor 5:19: Okay so they have to start over right.
Pooja Ranjan 5:21: Yes.
Victor 5:22: Got it yeah. We can that's okay. Okay for me if we said this as a policy just yeah.
###ERC-1046
Pooja Ranjan 5:29: Perfect! Moving ahead we have some updates to final proposals. The first one listed here is to ERC 1046. And the Pull Request number is 154.
Sam 5:52: Yeah I'm just going to close this one. It's going to be impossible to get approval from all the separate authors. I'm just going to suggest that they open new ones if they want to for each individual PR for proposal.
Pooja Ranjan 6:10: Are you going to add a comment there like just for authors to follow?
Sam 6:14: Yeah I'm.
Pooja Ranjan 6:15: Okay perfect. Thank you.
@Bumblefudge 6:18: Would it be possible I'm not exactly good at get but it would it be possible to just move each commit into a new PR or something do like sort of cherry picking approach?
Sam 6:31: Yeah it's if that's the approach they want to take absolutely.
@Bumblefudge 6:36: Maybe suggest it and if they say I don't know how to do that. I'll offer to do it for them or I'll try to learn how might be a fun excuse to learn how it works.
Sam 6:55: There we go.
Pooja Ranjan 6:58: With that we can move on to the next which is ERC number 6672 and the Pull request number is 285 here. Oh do we have a CFI for this particular PR fix the handle of co-author.
Sam 7:19: Yeah we don't. I'll make one for this. Yeah I'll make a CFI for this one.
Pooja Ranjan 7:32: Okay and now curious do we need a separate CFI or can we just use it with the other proposal which I think is already added here?
Sam 7:42: I think we need a separate one for each just so that we know like we have a record of who verified the identity and all that crap.
Victor 7:52: Should we instead just set up a policy of how it is verified and then I don't think verifying identity should be a CFI or it should be involved in the CFI. Let's say if someone just create a pull request and all the author or a number of the authors of that particular ERC agreed. They should be able to just merge. We can just approve it, given that there's someone attested instead of using a CFI.
Sam 8:20: Yeah I mean if you want to write that up um we can approve that and put it into either EIP1 or somewhere else maybe but yeah that's that's a good idea.
Victor 8:30: Okay and then obviously there are unique situation where there's a single only author. So I'll write it up Matt are you okay in that approach that we discuss the policy in the CL.
Pooja 9:06: Maybe we can get back on this one when we are looking into the CFIs. I mean call for inputs sorry I should not call it CFI call for inputs. We can perhaps have a little bit more discussion over there. And then come up with the summary for Attestation. All right. So we are leaving 6672 for now. I think Sam suggested to create call for input but we are not going to do that because we're not going to do the individual. Or are we sorry I just missed this part. No, I was just curious like I perhaps missed the decision for 6672 or we going to create a call for input or not?
Sam 10:18: So I think Victor is going to create a call of Call for input to make a general policy about how to deal with these kind of things. And yeah that's that's where we're leaving this.
Pooja Ranjan 10:31: But not specific to this 6672.
Samr 10:36: Yeah if it just going to create like a general one I'm not going to make a specific one for this.
Pooja Ranjan 10:41: Okay perfect. So the next one is ERC 7201 and the Pull Request number is 201 at ERC GitHub repository. Any thoughts on this one. it seems a bit contentious looks like the author is not in favor. I have not mistaken. yes one of the author is not in favor of merging this PR.
Sam 11:31: I think they ended up approving it on later on. Yeah it looks like they approved it. So this would be a clarification. I think this is a fine change but I'll make a CFI for it since it is technically changing a final EIP.
Pooja Ranjan 11:52: Okay Perfect. So let's move on to the bigger section of it's a call for input. There are five call for inputs I think the first one is by Gajinder Singh and rest all by Sam. So yeah whoever wants to take it.
Gajinder Singh 12:15: Yeah regarding mine, I think I'm fine if we don't really want to go through the pain of renaming and sort of rendering from authors to maintainers but I guess maybe we can just mention it in EIP 1. And sort of indicate that author is not really a credit list it's just people who will maintain the EIP.
Pooja Ranjan 12:52: Any difference of opinion or do we want to add that as a decision. I know we still have some more time left to collect more input. It's the last date is March 20th. Maybe keeper of consensus can take a call to keep it open or closed.
Sam 13:16: I mean if you're withdrawing it feel free to just close it I don't really there that much.
Gajinder 13:26: No I mean instead of withdrawing what I'm saying is that maybe we can mentioned this in EIP 1 that author is not really a credit list and it's just list of Maintainers. So it's not really fully withdrawing but yeah small action.
Sam 13:45: Yeah sure I mean be afraid to change it. I don't have a problem with that.
Pooja Ranjan 13:54: So the next step here would be a small PR to EIP 1 if we wanted change to be reflected in EIP 1.
Gajinder 14:03: Yeah I'll do the PR.
Pooja Ranjan 14:05: Perfect. So the next one is a 318. Sam?
Sam 14:17: So this was asked for by any EIP author. I believe it's the one that's working on falcon. Yeah so they want to link to a project because it's an implementation of the algorithm they want to use. I'm kind of against this just because I don't know if you can link to an academic paper. It's a lot better than linking to a particular implementation. Or an RFC or something along those lines but I put it up here for everybody to be aware of it. Deadline is March 20th. Leave your comments. Thanks the rest of them are probably mine too. Yeah okay so a different author this is for 320. A different author on a different proposal asked for a link to CAIPs or a chain agnostic Improvement proposal. I think yeah it's like another standard body like EIPs but less focused on ethereum. Deadline for this one is March 21st. Leave a comment on there in favor or opposing if you care. Moving on to 321. This is changing a reference implementation of a final ERC. Deadline for this one is March 22nd. Again leave your comments if you care. If not we'll see what happens on March 22nd. Next one is 325. This is changing an author's username in EIP 1193. I think this will be taken care of with Victor's General proposal on how to handle changing usernames. Deadline for this one is April 7th. Okay cool. So that's all of them.
Pooja Ranjan 16:29: So yeah maybe the the next one which is about General policy when we have the call for input we can perhaps share that with editors to collect more feedback and see if we can make it as a general policy over there.
Sam 16:44: Erick you have your hand Up.
Erick 16:48: Yes kindly I just wanted to add some comment regarding 318 and this is the EIP that the sorry the Pull request that I opened because I proposed another EIP which is 7619 which is bringing the post Quantum signature to ethereum because this is a new kind of, this is also evaluated by nist. This organization that works on standardization of new cryptographic staffs. So we analyze it and and saw that at the end Falcon is a good option and this is it when it was evaluated by people in the EIP team. They suggested me to add a new a link. So it can be better understood the implementation and these kind of things. But the thing is that I couldn't find a suitable option in to reference an external link. So I proposed that with the intention not to modify the EIP but the because it was the way I found to add a reference to this implementation. So just wanted to emphasize that thing. So maybe because I want to know not get Frozen that proposal which is the EIP 7619 but maybe find a way to get this proposal moving forward. So maybe if it is not accepted the proposal to modify or add an external link for just that implementation maybe I can just move that option and leave the EIP 7619 without an external reference implementation. maybe that would work some. What do you think?
Sam 19:16: So it's difficult to implement a like a hashing algorithm or an encryption algorithm without knowing what the algorithm is in fact I'd say it's kind of impossible. But we also need to be able to have our guarantees about how long these links are going to last. So maybe if you can include part of the reference implementation in the assets directory would be a good way to resolve this temporarily. Or if I mean I guess there's no real yeah I don't know I'm trying to find like a document describing how Falcon works that isn't PQClean. And I can't seem to find one. So yeah maybe like what's the license of PQClean.
Enrick 20:10: I'm not sure about the license actually.
Sam 20:13: Lets see PQClean is not licensed. All right. So we yeah that makes it really difficult yeah. I guess we can leave it in the draft without a link and we'll try to find a source for it if that's okay with the other editors.
Enrick 20:34: Okay but as you said maybe referencing some Link in the assets section could make a work around Wilson.
Sam 20:47: If you could just put the code in the assets directory would be the best option I think but if there's no license then we can't really do that.
Enrick 20:59: Okay, I'll take a look at this and maybe next time I'll try to contact you or see a way to to to resolve this. Thank you, Sam.
Sam 21:12: Yeah sorry it's not the most clear process right now.
Enrick 21:17: Yeah I understand. Thank you both.
Pooja Ranjan 21:26: So moving ahead we have other discussions continued or updates from the past meeting and the first one here is Working Group Chatter. I don't know if we have any updates on that.
Sam 21:39: We had some discussion at the the recent face to face in Toronto between myself Matt and Trent or Tim rather. And it kind of threw a wrench into the design that I was going with which is that you 'd have the same treatment for all working groups. Matt raised the objection. I don't know if you want to talk about it Matt or if you mind me summarizing It.
Lightclient 22:11: You can go ahead and summarize it.
Sam 22:13: Sure so the general Vibe I'm getting is that we want to treat ERC's and EIPs and possibly RIPs as special in some way. Where that they're the only working groups that get repositories and then other working groups don't get their own Repository and are kind of sub-working groups under those three. Which is very different from how I had implemented it. So I'm kind of thinking a little bit more about how to do this and yeah no updates on the actual documents or the implementation right now. Just some thinking.
Pooja 22:48: Well thank you for sharing. That does it make any difference in rendering like I understand you wanted to have it rendered with the help of working group but the web page that you were working is it possible to have all of them rendered there because as of now we do not have a placeholder for RIPs.
Sam 23:07: Yeah I mean in the end it doesn't really matter what the repository structure is it's possible to get them all to render on the same page.
Pooja 23:20: Perfect I think that would be helpful.
Victor 23:34: I was about to ask Sam is there any guidance on how to practically enable sub working groups. Let's say ERC is a is a working group but it could be pretty broad. And maybe people will be only interested in a section of it what's our current uh guidance in enabling those discussion.
Sam 24:04: Enabling those discussions as in discussions about how to make the process or the actual like working group discussions.
Victor 24:13: For example I would Envision some people want to work closely around ERC's about nfts right and some people might be interested in working around ERC of signatures like 1271 and and like canstruction side what are those like how do you see these kind of small group of interests uh in this structure of our new Charter.
Sam 24:44: Right so I think that's where the tension is coming from. so I would like to see them have their own repositories their own build system like they would have the exact same status as ERC’s whereas with the design that Tim and Matt are are proposing. They would all live under the ERC repository and umbrella. So I guess my answer is that isn't decided yet and I have no idea what our guidance is going to be yet.
Victor 25:18: Okay happy to kind of further the block idea with you yeah I and I agree that it's good for them to have separate uh repository and separate place to discuss of separate place to kind of collaborate um and then as they gain trust in the community. they can have more access or recognition by other part of the working groups.
Sam 25:54: Yeah that yeah something like that I think
Pooja Ranjan 26:05: So on the topic of RIPs I did had a chat with one of the RIPs working group members at Denver. It seems that they are interested to maybe show up on one of our future meetings for EIPIP and we'll get to learn more about it but due to its present GitHub structure. I think it is a little complicated to render their data on eips.ethereum.org. Yeah but I hope if the website Sam is working on if that also includes RIPs data that would be nice to have in the meantime.
Sam 26:56: Yeah it will whenever I get around to proposing it.
Pooja Ranjan 27:03: Sure no problem. Moving ahead we have EIPs insight taking a look at the data we do have one EIP which is a networking EIP proposed in draft status that is EIP 7636 extension of EIP 7784 for client ENR entry and we have five drafts on ERC side. There is one proposal in final status which is for ERC category and the proposal is ERC 7092 Financial Bond. Congratulation to the author. And we have two proposals in review which are on the ERC side ERC 7007 zero knowledge AI generated content token and ERC 7590 which is ERC 20 holder extension for NFTs don't have any proposal in the last call. So there's no rush but uh authors editors and Community are invited to maybe take a look at the proposals which are already into draft and review statuses. With that there is further announcement for EIP editing office hour. The meeting is planned for March 19th at 1600 UTC I have added the link to the agenda which is issue number 324 at Ethcaterherders EIPIP GitHub repository. People can also check out the video from the past meeting 33. And quickly taking a look at the action item here. Yeah I think we have covered all of them here. Okay did we get to this call for input adding additional author. Okay yes we did it yep okay perfect I think we have covered all the action item from the last meeting. We are a bit early if anyone has any final thoughts comment to add for this meeting or maybe for future meeting. Please do let us know and with this DST change in the United States the meeting time is an hour later but I'm wondering if people are interested in keeping this or if there is any suggestion on moving it it to a different time. I know we reached to this time after a long struggle but yeah any suggestion around time or anything else people would like to add here. I'll take answer to both are no change and people are happy with this short meeting. So yes uh we can have our 30 minutes back thank you everyone for joining us. See you in two weeks have a great day.
Sam 30:06: See you later everybody. Thank You.
- Pooja Ranjan
- Eric Pacheco
- Sam Wilson
- Nikki (@gaudren)
- Lightclient
- Gajinder
- Victor
- @bumblefudge