EIPIP Meeting 83

[poojaranjan]

Date and Time

June 14, 2023 at 14:00 UTC

Location

Zoom: TBA in the Discord #eip-editing channel

YouTube Live Stream/Recording: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4cwHXAawZxpLrRIkDlBjDUUrGgF91pQw

Agenda

1. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics

New Permissible Origins

• Update EIP-1: Update EIP-1 to allow link to BIPs ethereum/EIPs#6907
• Update EIP-1: Add W3C as a permissible origin ethereum/EIPs#7111
• Update EIP-1: Add IETF as a permissible origin ethereum/EIPs#7113
• Update EIP-1: Add WHATWG as a permissible origin ethereum/EIPs#7117
• Update EIP-1: Allow links to the Yellow Paper ethereum/EIPs#6834

Other

• CI: Bump rakefile deps ethereum/EIPs#6813
• Reopen EIP draft Ref comment

Changes to Final proposals

None

2. Discussion continued or updates from past meetings

• New contract interface and EIPs should be required to include a privacy considerations section ethereum/EIPs#5682
• splitting ERCs and Core EIPs

3. EIPs Insight - Monthly EIPs status reporting.

• Hackmd
• EIPsInsight.com

4. EIP Editing Office Hour

• Recording Meeting 19
• Agenda Meeting 20

5. Review action items from earlier meetings

• Summary here and here

[pcaversaccio]

I have continually documented in the (currently closed) EIP-6269 why it is relevant to reconsider this, and numerous people have also shown support, e.g. on Twitter (I have linked some of them) & @xinbenlv also can see my arguments why it is important (see his comments ethereum/EIPs#6269 (comment)). I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision as I really think it is wrong to close this important, definitional EIP.

Also, EIP editor @xinbenlv voiced his support here:

Yes, given the context of zkEVM, I think it's worthy to reopen this discussion about defining what's considered "EVM compliance"

Also we shall discuss it to be whether an informational or meta EIP?

It won't be possible for me to join the meeting due to a time issue but you find all of my arguments why this EIP draft should be re-opened in the GitHub trail after the PR got closed, e.g. here. TL;DR: An EIP should also serve the community to clear up ambiguities about core terminology, and this what I want to achieve here.

[xinbenlv]

Fine by me

[poojaranjan]

@pcaversaccio added for discussion

[timbeiko]

Again 😄 !

[poojaranjan]

Summary

1. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics

New Permissible Origins

• PR-6907: No objection from EIP Editors present in the meeting. It will be merged.
• PR-7111: No objection from EIP Editors present in the meeting. It will be merged.
• PR-7113: No objection from EIP Editors present in the meeting. It will be merged.
• PR- 7117: No objection from EIP Editors present in the meeting. It will be merged.
• PR-6834: No consensus achieved. It was planned to get back if we get time at the end, but did not get enough time to discuss.
• PR-6813: @SamWilsn will take a look offline
• Reopen EIP draft: EIP Editors not in favor of reopening.

2. Discussion continued or updates from past meetings

• PR-5682:
  • @SamWilsn proposed to rename "Security Consideration" to "Security & Privacy Consideration".
  • @xinbenlv @gcolvin are in favor. @g11tech is neutral @lightclient not in favor. No consensus yet.
• splitting ERCs and Core EIPs
  • @timbeiko shared that now we have EIP & ERC Editors to better manage processes separately
    • There are entirely different users of both processes
    • Perhaps separating them will provide a better opportunity for evolving processes separately.
  • Problems identified
    • Numbering of EIPs
    • Placeholder
  • Proposed solution
    • Odd-Even EIP numbers
    • Have a separate repo as https://github.com/ethereum/ERCs
  • Open question
    • What about Interface, Networking, Informational, Meta EIP?
    • Will that be a part of EIPs or ERCs repo?
  • Next step
    • @timbeiko will add an item to collect client teams' thoughts on the split of the repo.
    • Depending on how the ACDE call goes about this, further action will be taken.
      Recommend watching the recording for specifics.

[poojaranjan]

Closing in favor of #245