@ligi do you recommend that 695 should revert to Draft based on those concerns, or are you just noting them for posterity?
ligi
April 24, 2020, 4:50pm
22
Not sure if we need to move it back to draft for it. I think just explicitly specifying what the behavior should be to avoid problems like the one above should be enough.
axic
May 5, 2020, 9:08am
23
@sorpaas @rekmarks I think the update merged still doesn’t clarify what to return when there’s no chan id – 0?
Also the EIP/ERC is missing the “Security Considerations” section.
@axic , @sorpaas will review my PR specifying what to return in case there’s no chainId
(treat as unsupported; return suitable error): https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/2629
Regarding “Security Considerations,” it’s possible that @sorpaas already knows what to do there, but out of my own curiosity, what exactly are you looking for in that section?
axic
May 7, 2020, 9:16pm
25
rekmarks:
Regarding “Security Considerations,” it’s possible that @sorpaas already knows what to do there, but out of my own curiosity, what exactly are you looking for in that section?
EIP-1 states:
Security Considerations - All EIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surfaces risks and can be used throughout the life cycle of the proposal. E.g. include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks and how they are being addressed. EIP submissions missing the “Security Considerations” section will be rejected. An EIP cannot proceed to status “Final” without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
The reviewers here I believe predominantly means those who are very familiar with the Ethereum RPC system.
PR up, feedback appreciated! https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/2642
Edit: The PR was merged.