►
From YouTube: EIPIP meeting 49
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/107
A
A
So
we
came
across
this
eip
in
a
peep
and
eat
meeting
for
eap,
4361
sign
in
with
ethereum.
Do
we
realize
it
is
not
required
for
ethereum
sign-in
proposal,
but
is
an
important
one
for
other
projects?
A
I
had
a
chat
with
liggy
last
week
to
resurrect
this
proposal
and
he
had
some
questions
around
that
the
process
changed.
That
happened
since
the
proposal
was
documented,
so
yeah
over
to
you
like.
If
you
have
any
question-
and
I
would
like
to
share
with
the
ap
editors.
B
Yeah,
it
was
basically
about
the
new
items,
but
we
just
filled
it
out
with
pedro
now
so
to
just
like
fulfill
this
new
property.
So
basically,
I
think
we
should
have
filled
everything.
Should
I
fill
all
the
changes
yeah,
so
everything
exit
was
saying
was
missing
and
also
added
for
the
new
2.0
standard.
Basically,
there
was
a
little
bit
of
change
there.
B
Yeah
want
to
work
a
little
bit
more.
The
security
considerations
there's
a
little
bit
missing.
I
just
talked
to
peter
before
because,
but
he
couldn't
make
it
to
this
call,
but
afterwards
we
hope
it's
merchable,
so
yeah,
because
it's
used
it's
widely
used
and
we
kind
of
want
to
make
it
final
saw
the
path
to
find
it
so
make
it
draft
first
and
then
wait
two
weeks
and
then
make
it
final.
A
So
going
by
the
earlier
comments
on
this
will
request,
it
looks
like
it
is.
Okay,
I
have
added
the
link
to
the
agenda,
so
if
there
is
anything
that
is
needed
from
editor's
point
of
view,
please
leave
a
comment
just
wanted
to
bring
it
to
attention
that
we
would
like
to
direct
us.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Moving
on
the
item.
Number
two
here
is
what
to
put
in
the
test
cases
section.
So
this
is
inspired
by
mikhail's
comment,
which
is
there
on
the
discord
ether
and
it
is
called,
but
I
suppose
it
will
be
useful
for
other
authors
as
well.
Is
there
a
general
guideline
for
adding
test
cases
section
so
by
general
guideline
I
mean:
can
it
be
updated
in
later
statuses,
for
example,
eap
3675
that
is
moving
to
review?
A
So
is
it
okay
to
add
a
test
plan
or
the
link
to
the
test
plan
and
when
the
testing
is
done
before
moving
it
to
last
call
that
will
be
updated.
C
C
Section
test
cases
section
is
optional
and
part
of
the
reason
for
that
is
so
people
don't
have
to
make
sure
have
test
cases
ready
at
the
beginning.
So
whenever
you
have
desk
cases
ready
add
them
in.
If
you
don't
have
them,
then
just
leave
the
section
out
entirely.
A
So
by
optional
it
means
for
proposals,
so
I'm
sure
it
it
will
not
be
the
core
proposal,
but
any
other
proposal.
If
they
do
not
have
test
cases
just
the
reference
implementation
should
be
working
right.
There
should
not
be
a
blocker.
C
A
Cool
all
right
that
is
good
to
know.
We
will
update
the
author.
I
I
think
that
was
it
on
this
particular
item.
A
I
see
shashank
joining
the
call,
so
I
I
suppose
we
can
pick
up
the
item
of
the
eip
bot
coming
back
to
item
number
one
following
the
working
of
the
bots
in
the
past
few
months.
We
all
know
that
automation
has
helped
us
a
lot
and
I
was
discussing
to
some
other
others
and
they
mentioned
that
it
has
helped
us
and
like
moving
things
faster
comments
on
github
and
ethernet.
Discord
shows
that
there
are
still
room
for
improvement.
A
We
are
making
progress,
of
course,
so
to
continue
these
improvements.
I
have
added
this
as
recurring
item
for
eipip
meeting.
The
first
sub
item
is
the
progress
on
documenting
working
of
different
bots.
I
know
we
discussed
in
past
few
meetings
from
shashank
if
you
may
have
for
that
update
on
this
to
share.
E
So
I
discussed
with
alita
on
the
on
on
our
research
or
discord,
and
I
realized
that
while
I
was
working
on
the
documentation,
all
the
documentation
that
was
actually
necessary
was
already
present
and
any
of
the
rest
of
the
flow
that
was
required
to
understand.
As
as
how
these
bots
are
working.
That
specific
part
is
already
present
in
the
yaml
files
in
the
configuration
files
and
any
of
the
doubts
that
I
had
was
cleared
by
micah
in
the
last
meeting.
E
I
guess
last
last
meeting,
so
I'm
I'm
now
I'm
failing
to
understand
if
we
should
even
continue
working
on
the
bot
documentation,
because
I
don't
feel
it's
necessary
anymore,
because
major
of
the
confusion
that
I
had
was
understanding
where
it's
starting
and
where
it's
ending.
But
if
you
just
see
the
documentation
and
go
through
the
code,
it's
actually
pretty
much
self-explanatory.
If
I
can
say.
A
Good
to
know
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
people
who
are
trying
to
join
here
or
finding
ways
to
contribute,
as
a
new
contributor
should
be
able
to
find
that
now
that
we
are
sure
that
everything
is
already
there
and
should
be
easy.
It's
good
to
know.
A
We
are
currently
collecting
issues
on
eip
part
github
repository.
So
if
there
is
anything
related
to
eip
bot
that
people
find
is
not
working,
please
add
an
issue
on
the
eib
bot
github.
The
link
is
added
to
the
agenda
related
to
bart.
I
had
couple
of
couple
of
items
to
be
discussed
by
attempts.
Actually
there
is
this
tag
ambiguous.
I'm
wondering
like
what
is
the
logic
behind
that
like
how
do
bart
decide
that
it
needs
to
go
ambiguous
and
not
new
or
anything
else.
Are
we
aware
of.
C
Yeah,
I
believe
ambiguous
is
the
label
it
gives
when
it
can't
tell
what
type
of
vip
it
is.
So
normally
the
bot,
I
think,
will
label
things
as
like
an
erc
or
a
query,
ap
et
cetera
if
for
some
reason,
the
bots,
I'm
able
to
figure
that
out,
usually
because
the
header
data
is
incorrect,
I
think
that's
when
it
labels
it
ambiguous,
and
basically
this
means
some
editor
needs
to
look
at
it
and
give
feedback
to
the
user
to
tell
them
what
to
fix
their
problem.
Basically,.
A
C
C
C
C
C
Yeah,
okay,
so
look
looking
at
the
bot
message.
It
did
parse
the
eip
itself,
but
then
it
failed
to
parse
the
the
image.
C
C
D
E
C
A
That
makes
sense,
so
that's
a
very
good
use
of
labels,
and
I
also
find
the
usage
of
a
new
label
called
editor
needs
to
review.
Yesterday
we
were
discussing
how
we
can
like
make
it
easier
for
eip
editors
to
figure
out
which
new,
which
proposals
or
pull
request
needs
review.
A
E
I
think
so,
I'm
checking
on
eip
4671
non-tradable,
not
readable
token,
by
omar
flack
and
in
the
board.
It
shows
that
this
pr
requires
review
from
one
of
light,
client
and
a
basic
and
that's
it
me
and
I'm
not
sure
if
the
label
was
they
will
happen
because
of
that
is
that
it
or.
H
I
think
that's
a
little
bit
different
than
what
we
want
right,
because
that's
saying
like
we
need
a
like
permissioned
editor
to
come
along
and
do
like
a
something
that
requires
authentication
like
merging
or
something
on
those
lines
which
I
think
what
we
actually
want
is
more
like
a
label
that
says
hey.
Somebody
has
looked
at
this
and
they
have
like
tagged
the
bot
to
say
now
we're
waiting
for
the
author
and
then
the
author
can
reply
or
push
a
commit,
and
then
it
just
flips
back
to
like
an
editor
mode.
E
C
H
C
A
So
I
think
here
is
like,
in
general
cases
whenever
it
is
like
status
change
or
what
is
passing
other
ci
and
other
checks
there
is
this
label
status
change
that
can
help
editor
to
know
that
okay,
fine,
this
is
done,
but
there
is
one
specific
case
where
editor
is
not
able
to
identify
whether
it
is
up
to
him
or
up
to
the
author,
for
example,
when
a
label
is
added
by
an
editor
requires
author's
response.
A
E
Yeah,
because
that
takes
the
pressure
off
of
the
ipa
editors
and
also
authors
right,
you
can
save
a
lot
of
time
instead
of
manually
attacking
each
of
these
air
protectors.
A
Maybe
I
can
create
an
issue
on
the
eip.
Bot
github
I'll
will
try
to
figure
out
how
to
make
best
use
of
these
labels.
I
mean
particularly
editor
needs
review,
but
is
there
anything
else,
sam
and
likeland?
You
would
like
to
add
from
yesterday's
discussion.
I
I
get
one
point
where
the
author
is
unable
to
remove.
The
tag
of
author
has
already
reviewed
it
and
would
be
good
to
have
editor's
response
tag
over
there.
A
All
right,
maybe
we
can
start
with
that,
we'll
see
if,
if
we
can
try,
if
we
can
automate
that
response
and
maybe
make
use
of
this
tag,.
A
Okay,
that's
on
the
eip
part,
so
we
already
have
covered
number
two
and
number
three
number
four.
This
topic
was
added
by
william
and
triken.
So
a
few
weeks
ago
we
discussed
some
of
the
comments
left
by
william
treiken
in
the
eibap
meeting
and
based
on
the
recommendation.
He
created
this
pull
request
to
update
the
readme
file
and
I
invited
him
to
add
today's
meeting.
I
don't
see
him
here.
A
So
if
there
is
anything,
any
change
is
recommended
feel
free
to
leave
a
comment
and
maybe
we'll
try
to
bring
this
item
in
the
next
meeting
when
he
is
around
item
number
five
is
about
execution
specs,
so
we
discussed
it
in
the
last
meeting,
and
I
remember
sam
wilson
also
talking
about
an
all
core
dev
meeting
last
friday.
I'm
not
sure
if
there
is
anything
new
to
add,
but
if
not,
this
is
just
from
the
last
meeting
sam.
A
H
C
Would
it
would
be
nice
if
the
execution
spec
people
I.e,
sam
and
peter,
I
think,
and
the
eip
editor
people
could
come
to
the
table
and
come
to
some
sort
of
agreement
on
what
we
think
the
future
of
eips
is.
I
think
if
we
can
present
a
united
front
to
the
core
devs
we'll
go
a
lot
smoother
than
if
the
execution
spec
people
and
the
eip
people
are
bickering,
while
also
trying
to
get
feedback
from
those.
C
I
don't
know
when
the
right
time
for
that
is,
but
when
I
would
say
before,
you
want
to
start
to
bring
up
with
the
core
devs
a
change
in
process.
We
should
probably
have
one
or
more
discussions.
Oh
for.
H
C
C
I
think
the
only
thing
that
I
don't
agree
on
is
keeping
the
eip
process
as
it
is
like
I
would.
I
would
rather
see
things
move
more
to
something
new
like
I
feel
like.
This
is
a
good
opportunity
to
break
from
the
old,
particularly
for
corey
aps
for
year
season,
whatever
we
can
be
separate,
but
I
think
this
is
a
excellent
opportunity
to
break
away
core
eips
into
their
own
new
thing.
That
is
separate
from
everything
else.
H
C
I
mean
you
could
probably
convince
me
on
that.
I
I
weakly
want
to
get
rid
of
the
name
just
because
the
name
brings
with
it
history
and
I'd
rather
not
bring
the
history,
but
that's
not
something
that
I
will
not
heal
out
without
dion
and
I'll
die
in
a
lot
of
hills.
C
C
You
mean:
how
can
we
move
them
out
into
the
execution,
spec
stuff
yeah?
Just
an
example
like
in
my
perfect
world
of
rainbows
unicorns
that
will
never
exist.
C
We
would
have,
as
people
are
doing,
pull
requests
for
the
execution
spec.
We
would
document
in
there
somewhere
the
like
the
human
readable
version
of
the
change
control
process.
It
would
not.
C
H
So
I
think
the
only
concern
with
that
is
it
would
be
very
so
so
we
can
do
a
diff
per
hard
fork
fairly
easily.
Well,
I
mean
it's
not
fairly
easy,
but
that
is
the
the
path
we're
going
down,
but
if
we
want
to
maintain
a
diff
per
eip,
that
would
probably
be
a
lot
more
work.
C
So
I
I
do
not
feel
a
strong
need
to
keep
a
diff
per
eip,
but
I
suspect
there
will
be
people
who
demand
that
and
so
having
in
particular,
I
think
people
want
the
ability
to
point
at
a
change
set
and
give
it
a
name.
Slash
number
slash
identifier
of
some
kind
and
I
think
that's
gonna
be
the
hardest
thing
to
fulfill.
H
Yeah,
I
mean
so
that's
pretty
easy
when
you
have
like,
like
during
the
development
process
for
an
eip,
but
once
it
become
like
once
we're
done
and
we're
moved
on
to
the
next
hard
fork.
Every
change
set
that
we
want
is
we,
like
has
to
be
maintained
so
like
right
as
a
good
example
of
this
yeah.
So.
H
As
a
good
example,
this
eliminating
the
accountants
to
two
to
the
64.
like
that
chain,
like
for
every
diff
that
we
maintain,
we
have
to
backport
that
change
to
it.
So
if
we
have
more
like,
if
we
track
each
eip
separately,
then
we
have
to
back
port
every
like
kind
of
refactoring,
every
soft
fork
yeah
and
it
gets
really
tedious.
C
Yeah,
so
I
I'm
with
you-
and
this
is
part
of
why
I
think
that
we
should
all
agree
before
we
go
to
the
core
devs.
So
that
way,
there's
a
better
chance.
We
can
fight
for
these
things
that
are
kind
of
bigger
and
are
going
to
be
more
contentious,
such
as
dropping
the
permanency
of
unique
identifiers
for
changes.
H
C
Can
do
and
that
rolled
up
diff
would
also
like,
wherever
we're,
storing
the
human
readable
version
of
these
changes.
That
would
also
be
rolled
up
with
hard
forks
yeah,
exactly
yeah.
C
The
everything
yeah
right-
yes,
I
think
that
that's
the
one
piece
that
I
suspect
we're
gonna
get
some
pushback
on.
I
like
it
and
I'm
with
you
on
it.
I
just
suspect
there
will
be
people
that
strongly
want
to
have
like
the
ability
to
link
to
you,
know
eip1559
or
whatever,
and
have
that
be
a
kind
of
permanent
link
that
lives
forever
and
is
isolated
to
just
that
change,
not
all
other
changes
in
the
same
hard
fork.
I
agree
with
you.
C
H
A
Well,
that
was
the
idea
I
totally
agree
to
micah
and
sam.
We
wanted
to
have
this
process
well
explained
here
in
these
calls,
and
when
we
have
something
real
solid,
we
can
go
back
to
the
all
all
coder
meeting
presented,
so
people
be
on
board,
and
that
would
be
the
time
of
getting
feedback
from
them.
If
there
are
some
small
changes
requested,
I
talked
to
one
of
the
cat
herders,
who
is
trying
to
contribute
on
the
execution
spec
right
now.
A
A
All
right
moving
to
the
next
item.
It
is
a
eip
insight.
For
the
month
of
february,
in
february,
we
have
received
two
new
drafts
eip
four:
seven:
five:
zero
eip,
four
five,
two
seven,
four,
seven,
five
zero
is
eof
functions
and
four
five
two
seven
is
qr
data
transmission
protocol
for
the
offline
valid.
A
There
is
this
one
proposal
which
is
in
the
last
call
eip2098,
so
this
proposal,
two
zero,
nine
eight.
It
is
compact,
signature
representation.
It's
an
informational
type
proposal.
A
We
had
a
chat
with
the
author
for
peep
and
eep
for
this
particular
proposal,
and
it
appeared
to
us
like
this
proposal
should
not
be
informational,
but
it
can
be
an
erc
and
both
the
co-authors,
richard
moore
and
nick
johnson
are
in
agreement
that
it
should
be
moved
to
the
erc
category.
I
wanted
to
bring
it
to
this
this
discussion
today,
because
the
last
call
period
is
ending
on
february
13th
and
if
we
have
to
make
any
changes,
it
has
to
be
done
like
sooner
rather
than
later.
A
C
That
can
go
either
way.
I
generally
don't
like
your
informationals
at
all
like
I
like
them,
just
not
exist,
so
I
have
a
weak
preference
for
erc
on
this
one.
A
Yeah,
because
this
is
like
in
the
last
call
and
is
almost
ready
to
final,
we
thought
that
we
should
discuss
it
with
eap
editors,
because
authors
are
in
agreement
and
we
hope
to
see
a
pull
request
soon,
requesting
for
a
type
change.
A
Sounds
good,
unfortunately,
matt
has
to
go
so
he
is
not
in
the
call,
but
we'll
bring
it
up
later
on
with
him,
maybe
when
the
pull
request
is
available
and
for
other
proposals
this
month.
Okay,
there
is
one
more
thing
that
I
might
want
to
check
with
you
micah.
You
may
be
able
to
help
me
here.
It
is
eip
663,
so
in
the
eap
inside
I'm
going
to
share
the
link
right
here.
What
happened
like
exec
created
this
pull
request
to
maybe
update
it.
A
A
First
of
all
like
why
did
it
happen
in
the
first
place,
because
exec
is
both
author
and
the
editor?
It
should
be
fine,
and
if
you
have
any
insight
on
this
particular
issue,
so.
C
A
A
So
I
didn't
understand
the
reason
why
it
is
there,
but
both
showed
them
as
much
and
now
there
is
this
new
pull
request.
So
I
was
wondering
like
why
do
we
need
to
have
a
new
pull
request
and
why
is
it
not
getting
auto
merge?
I'm
also
sharing
the
question.
Yes,.
C
Okay,
so
the
first
one
4749.
C
C
A
I
think
I
I
got
the
problem
right
now.
I
mean
like,
as
you
mentioned,
that
because
it
was
because
exec
was
author
and
he
was
trying
to
resurrect
the
proposal.
That's
maybe
the
reason
it
is
waiting,
because
I
was
wondering,
like
the
new
pull
request,
number
four,
seven,
five:
four:
why
is
it
still
waiting?
I
got
it.
Thank
you
so
much.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that's
all
on
the
eip
inside.
I
have
added
a
new
dashboard
this
month,
that
is
for
the
proposals
that
are
added
as
draft
versus
proposals
that
actually
moves
to
final.
A
It
will
be
interesting
to
see
it
like
very
few
proposals
are
getting
to
final
status
in
comparison
to
proposals
which
are
added
as
draft,
which
is
normal,
of
course,
but
yeah.
I'm
excited
to
look
into
these
numbers.
A
That's
about
eip
inside
and
eip
editor
apprenticeship
meeting
is
the
next
item
we
had
this
meeting
yesterday.
I
have
added
the
recording
and
summary
for
people
to
refer
to.
It
is
again
the
simple
process
where
eap
edit
is
explained
to
the
new
people,
new
contributors
who
want
to
be
reviewers,
so
it
would
be,
it
would
be
a
good
learning.
Although
we
had
some
hiccups
yesterday,
internet
was
broken,
but
yeah
people
can
go
back
and
refer
to.
The
next
meeting
is
planned
in
two
weeks
from
yesterday.
A
A
And
action
items
were
checked
to
make
sure
the
greeter
bot
gets
activated
only
for
issues
section
not
for
the
pull
request.
I
haven't
seen
any
new
comment
from
creator,
but
by
any
chance
anyone
else
has
observed.
A
A
A
That
concludes
the
item.
Those
are
listed
here,
but
there
is
one
thing
that
I
wanted
to
maybe
bring
up
today.
I
see
there
are
three
new
issues
created
for
three
respective
eips.
A
I'm
not
not
that
I'm
aware
of
I
will
check
with
the
team,
but
I
mean
I
know
that
this
is
from
like
a
free
software
that
was
mentioned
by
greg
in
one
of
the
meeting
earlier,
so
I
will
check
with
the
team
if
this
is
still
the
case
or
people
can
update
it.
But
if
there
is
some
something
like
someone
is
looking
for
some
immediate
help,
we
can
probably
get
it
updated
from
back
end.
C
Yeah,
it's
the
the
one
thing
that
I'm
waiting
for
before
I
really
start
pushing
hard
on
people
to
move
over.
Is
that?
Because
greg
did
bring
up
a
good
point
that
if
you
can't
repeatedly
edit
indefinitely
your
original
post,
then
it
doesn't
serve
as
a
complete
replacement
for
github
issues.
So
as
long
as
we
are
unable
to
edit
marginal
posts,
I
think
that
we
will
have
a
hard
time
asserting
to
people
that
they
need
to
move.
A
That
make
total
sense.
I
don't
know
a
liggy.
Are
you
part
of
that
team?
The
fellowship
of
ethereum
magician
sorry
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
I'm
just
wondering
like
who
would
be
the
best
person
to
reach?
I
know
anna
and
maybe
jimmy,
but
anyone
else
who
are
aware
of
the
process
behind
the
scene
for
fellowship
of
a
theater
magician.
A
They
seem
to
be
stepped
away
from
the
microphone,
maybe
for
a
while,
but
I'll
check
with
the
team
and
we'll
try
to
have
some
update
by
the
next
meeting.
And
yes,
one
item
that
I
already
have
shared
in
the
discord
channel
that
now
the
eipv,
the
eip
validator,
that
has
been
moved
to
ethereum
github
repository.
A
C
We
should
probably
discuss
not
many
more
people
in
the
call,
but
we
should
probably
discuss
making
sam
and
or
who
is
it?
Will
editors.
A
A
That's
right,
yep
yeah.
I
did
chat
with
the
light
client
on
this
in
one
of
the
meetings.
Maybe
earlier
I
don't
remember
when,
and
we
agreed
on
your
suggestion
when
you
recommended
that
people
who
feel
like
being
an
editor
should
come
forward
and
say
that
they
have
been
continuously
making
contribution,
as
you
mentioned,
that
we
don't
have
most
of
the
people
around.
Do
you
want
me
to
add
it
in
the
next
meeting
as
gender
item,
we
can
probably
have
a
discussion
on
this.
C
A
A
Okay-
and
there
is
one
last
issue
that
I
can
find
it
on
the
eap
github
that
is
related
to
proposal
4337-
I
don't
know
if
anyone
looked
into
it
or
not,
the
number
is
4783.
A
These
are
just
some
typos
changes
must
should
not,
but
I'm
understanding
if
they
are
under
a
special
bracket.
There
should
be
a
reason
behind
it.
C
Oh
yeah,
this
is
this
is
not
any
pr.
This
is
just
a
an
issue,
so
someone
can
just
comment
to
on
the
issue
and
just
tell
the
user.
Please
submit
a
pr.
A
A
Okay
and
then
the
general
recommendation
would
be
like.
Maybe
we
can
comment
on
this
issue
asking
the
person
to
maybe
create
a
pull
request
to
such
as
these
changes
to
the
proposal.
A
A
Well,
in
that
case,
thank
you
so
much
for
time
and
thank
you
so
much
for
joining
and
I'm
gonna
create
the
agenda
for
the
next
meeting
right
after
this
meeting,
please
feel
free
to
add
your
items
that
you
would
like
to
be
discussed
in
upcoming
meetings
with
the
eip
editors.
Obviously
it
will
have
the
regular
items,
but
it
would
be
good
to
hear
more
issues
that
people
would
like
to
be
resolved
that
is
related
to
eip
process
or
any
particular
proposal.