Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
273 lines (207 loc) · 18.5 KB

2023-05-13.md

File metadata and controls

273 lines (207 loc) · 18.5 KB
Raw

Monthly reporting to Catalyst submitted 2023-05-13

Period between 2023-04-15 and 2023-05-13 inclusive

Quantitative contributions

CIP pull requests @rphair involved in, by last update time = 43 in this period

CIP issues @rphair involved in, by last update time = 1 in this period

Cardano Forum CIP topics @COSDpool posted in since beginning of period = 1 addressed in this period

CIP team progress

Open pull requests (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls) = 68

Open issues (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/issues) = 31

Qualitative contributions

After last month's increase in activity as well as the usual rate of opening new CIP PRs, the number of open issues is roughly the same because of a group push to continue proposals that have been in an indeterminate state. After some cleaning up of PFs which have been abandoned by authors I expect we will soon return to the balance of open PRs which we had last year.

Often proposal authors post on Discord to find the best way to progress their proposals. Sometimes in fact editors have been waiting for author activity, which we can then be more explicit about (in terms of what we've been expecting)... and also this better dialogue has caught a couple of cases where old PRs had become less visible due to backlog and lack of recent review comments. Therefore I believe this better communication has had noticeable effects to start clearing up the backlog.

From my own GitHub comment frequency on CIP PR's, which for all editors is most often in response to authors' and third party reviews' activity, we can conclude that a lot of these PRs are stalled and a more linear review of the open PRs should force each one into either progress or deprecation. This will be my target for the next month & likely a goal of the other two editors who have been tied up in Governance related proposals.

2023-05-02 CIP Editors Meeting #65 - 4pm (UTC)

https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/65

Triage

CIP-???? | Proposal creation metadata (cardano-foundation/CIPs#511)

  • @emiflake (Emily Martins)
  • my introduction
  • Brand new & I reviewed this, saying:
    • Needs Path to Active (NOT a candidate until it has one?!)
      • including, How is Agora different than Liqwid? (seen)
    • Also needs CDDL schema (currently a table in Markdown): author "will do"
  • other editor feedback TO MAKE SURE POSTED. (and CHECK HACKMD for KT note)
    • Sebastien says also (good point) why is it a CIP rather than just an Agora specification?
      • (although Agora itself is expected to be widely used by community)
    • OR really do they just need to reserve the metadata label & nothing else?
    • So depends (and will dictate Path to Active) on whether they think this is worth standardising.
    • I requested this here after meeting: cardano-foundation/CIPs#511 (review)

CIP-???? | Cardano dApp-Wallet Web Bridge Governance Extension (cardano-foundation/CIPs#509)

  • Let author / editor Ryan take the lead on this!
  • my review: some spelling (corrected) and bech32 key definition (corrected)
  • My feeling: this will be open as long as CIP-1694, to make its API matches governance Ledger requirements (?).
    • Good enough for wallet devs to start working with it: one reason to give it CIP number ASAP.
    • So assign CIP number / candidate status now & prepare for long review process.
  • details (OK: tech discussion progressing)
    • KT: is this for constructing necessary certificates or just signing them?
    • Also the "right approach" because wallets shouldn't provide the governance function BUT the dApp providers will need to.
  • RESOLVED we will assign a candidate number.

CIP-???? | On-chain Transaction Chaining (cardano-foundation/CIPs#508)

  • Michele Nuzzi @michele-nuzzi
  • peer review ongoing
    • Las (IS HE HERE?) has compared it to a well known problem MPJ pointed out (IntersectMBO/cardano-ledger#768), stalled since December 2022
    • Duncan said these would still all need to be in the same block: but author explains why not.
    • MPJ reviewed last week: no responses from author yet.
  • Author has promised edit for "composability of transactions"
  • MAYBE a candidate; could wait until first round editing based on feedback.
  • moving on without assigning CIP number yet (discussion still going ahead actively on GitHub in meantime)

CIP-???? | Representing the Script Context as a SOP term (cardano-foundation/CIPs#507)

  • NOT NEW - just broken out from cardano-foundation/CIPs#455
  • ASSIGN NUMBER & CANDIDACY so people considering these problems can have points of reference.
    • Even more important if, as some reviewers think, there are alternative solutions.
  • KT heavily involved in this & in fact has been pushing content to it.
    • reviewed history vs CIP-0085 which itself is undisputed (Last Check)
    • Still some disgreement about how to use the SOP structure in script interface.
    • Benchmarks underway to see how impacts performance: "conversation still going"

Review

CIP-0048? | NFT metadata references and payloads (cardano-foundation/CIPs#249)

  • "Jack" "Jack-0" "Jack7e" "ada9000" (anonymous author)
  • NOTHING TO DO HERE (yet)... clearly marked "Waiting for author"
    • though no longer deprecated thanks to Adam Dean CIP-0088 synergy begun here (28 March): cardano-foundation/CIPs#249 (review)
      • ... however nothing passed between these 2 authors in some time.
    • I did a BIG REVIEW (18 april, after last meeting): mainly because document format is antiquated & functionally incomplete: NO RESPONSE
  • MY SUGGESTION
      1. put officially on front-page Waiting for Author list at next "KT update":
      • "NFT Metadata extension tag" is already on that list & would make sense to pair them for same author's attention.
      • Don't want to waste a time-consuming & helpful review, but CAN'T BE MERGED AS IS.
      • ... most especially there's no Path to Active so we'd just have a "brainstorm" CIP sitting there without any responsibility for it.
      1. tag for Deprecation if it's correct that Adam Dean's interest is now stale.
  • I REVIEWED in meeting so this is back to being deprecated... will put on GitHub that we're preparing to close this because link with CIP88 hasn't been established.

CIP-0067 | add ADA Handles Virtual SubHandle (cardano-foundation/CIPs#504)

  • Papa / Baby Goose / Conrad (conraddit)
  • "class" follow up with Papa Goose & Alessandro:
  • TO ASK IF ADAHANDLE GUYS would be able to make a suggestion about this process; contrast with what's been done with #494 because documentation ahead of time made this easy to discuss & approve.
    • can they suggest a process for adding classes?  Once we have it then we would be able to approve this [create motive].
    • DONE, VIA MY COMMENT: cardano-foundation/CIPs#504 (review)

Last-check

CIP-0085? | Sums-of-products in Plutus Core (cardano-foundation/CIPs#455)

  • RESOLVED BEFORE MEETING Last Check, linked proposal:
  • ...but isn't even though I restored its Last Check label from KT 18 March
  • M Nuzzi has an "alternative" to it, but what remains in this PR is the part everyone else agreed upon.
  • "Last Check" label still remains in the meantime.
  • In my opinion and in MPJ analysis this is the one part "undisputed" and ready for merge.
  • SO FIRST EITHER:
    • merge this or confirm at "Last Check"
    • officially acknowledge Nuzzi dispute & remove that GitHub label.
  • but KT reviewed before meeting & now ready to merge @ meeting.
  • MERGED with enough approval by language implementors.

CIP-0068 | Add SFT Semi-fungible token support (cardano-foundation/CIPs#494)

  • My review (Ryan also signed off): cardano-foundation/CIPs#494 (review)
  • so ready to HIT THE MERGE BUTTON unless any last requests.
  • Andrew Westberg is here & reviewed it!
    • Makes more sense to create a separate class than to add characteristics to fungible tokens ("currencies").
    • Ada Handle guys also said they like it & would be willing to use it.
    • Application: in-game currencies with rich metadata.
  • KT only problem is with "semi-fungible" designation... should just be "fungible tokens" and call the featureless, regular assets "currencies".  But is going ahead with it anyway.
    • Also legal issues with calling things "currencies" as Andrew says, especially in USA.
    • "Rich Fungible Tokens" everyone seems happy with!
    • Andrew will change accordingly (to "RFT"), and then can merge.

CIP-0086? | NFT Metadata Update Oracles (cardano-foundation/CIPs#430)

  • NOTED on Discord 25 Apr: recommend for Last Check, or to move to Last Check at meeting:
  • I'm tagging it Last Check now.
    • Needs one more sign-off from editors (I passed it 2 months ago: cardano-foundation/CIPs#430 (review))
      • Seba requested CDDL spec which is now done.
    • So has everything else in my opinion: ready to HIT THE MERGE BUTTON since already several affirmative reviews from peer group.
  • OK TO MERGE and needs one more review... KT sounds ready to do this now.
    • (I asked again on GitHub & live agenda)

2023-04-18 CIP Editors Meeting #64 - 8:30 am (UTC)

ARRANGED AHEAD OF TIME TO BE ON AGENDA (here)

  • Review (was ready to go for meeting #63 with author present but we never got to it; he says he'll be at the next one)
  • Review (this apparently defunct proposal has new life breathed into it via pending CIP88 = Native Asset Policy certs)
    • cardano-foundation/CIPs#249
    • (Jack-0 / jack7e / ada9000)
    • of course related to the unpopular NFT metadata extension tag #343 which can probably be deprecated.
  • Triage (discussed a lot already, result of IOG working group; should have pending CIP# since getting lots of participation)
    • cardano-foundation/CIPs#499
    • also ping @michele-nuzzi, @nielstron
    • AVOID MERGING without final call with these interested parties (not just MPJ)
  • Triage (not a CIP PR, but a quick consideration of whether ADA subhandles can be "class"-ed along with anything similar)
  • Review (not a CIP PR: an update which is sanctioned by CIP60 author but probably proper to look over @ the meeting before merging)

AGENDA, old style draft (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15HCJDR-Wr-8kEhZpyVk_NszpZACyf1zAYtcSTUgLLcE)

Triage

CIP? Supercharged Native Scripts (@nielstron - Niels Mulder?) cardano-foundation/CIPs#479

  • Got cut off in Internet connection saying well written but some disputed about whether it was necessary... I think it's been bumped until next meeting? (though I was saying I believe it should be given a number for consideration & more active review)
  • Review already proceeding on GitHub in the meantime.

CPS? Voltaire Era Governance (Pi Lanningham - @Quantumplation) cardano-foundation/CIPs#481

  • decided to give it #1694 since presented Jared's and KT's opinions very well... in fact could have been written by them.
  • Fairly complete & undisputed

CIP? On-chain dApp Certification Metadata - cardano-foundation/CIPs#499

  • watch for attendees (1 OR 2 EXPECTED)
    • Romain Soulat (introduced)
    • Nicolas Jeannerod
    • Mathieu Montin
    • M. Ali Modiri / mixaxim @ gimbalabs (also spoke)
    • Simon Thompson
  • Ryan (editor) talked about some particulars (already stated on GitHub)
    • 3 questions still open from his own review (noted by KT)
  • Romain spoke also at meeting re: those remarks, highlighted on meeting & is making adjustments.
  • KT has serious reservations about putting JSON on the chain.
    • Therefore (and this should be added to CIP-0001?) needs CDDL SPEC IN CIP because we are PUTTING CBOR ON THE CHAIN.
    • This is another example of that... "minor" but needs to be done consistently.
  • great discussion so assining number.

Review

CIP-0072 | DApp Registration & Discovery (@ehanoc / Bruno Martins [left] - Mateusz Czeladka) - cardano-foundation/CIPs#355

  • linked from the last CIP ("cert metadata") here: https://github.com/RSoulatIOHK/CIPs/blob/cip-certification-metadata/CIP-onchain-cert-metadata/README.md#rationale-how-does-this-cip-achieve-its-goals
  • Romain (from "cert") thumbs-upped interested in seeing how to "attest trust to on-chain public signatures... I can present idea how to do this without DIDs." offered by @matiwinnetou
  • Mateusz Czeladka (@matiwinnetou) present today:
    • we discussed on Discord whether versions should be in the header... which he wanted to apply to all CIPs.
      • so far I'm the only one that participated in that discussion & tagged KT but he hasn't replied yet (I don't think it's necessary)
      • I said he & all authors are free to apply their own schema scheme.
      • KT says he agrees with what I wrote... authors can deprecate old one (as with successors to CIP25) or include a version progression (as in CIP60; or others with schemas)... i.e. it depends on the context.
      • Proposed CIPs are understood to be subject to cosmetic & sometimes even procedural change... while when tagged Active we'd be more reluctant to change it.
    • also needs CDDL vs. JSON to define schema.
    • he linked a reference implementation: https://github.com/Cardano-Fans/crfa-dapp-registration-and-certification-service

[metadata only] CIP-0067 | add ADA Handles Virtual SubHandle (papa / baby gooses) - cardano-foundation/CIPs#504

  • Need to get extension (Alessandro) to CIP-0067 to:
    • maybe defined default class of NFT
    • specify how to create new classes (adding to CIP-67)
  • then we can ask my comment cardano-foundation/CIPs#504 (review) by linking to this documentation instead of making the same questions & demands in for every new asset name label.

[update only] CIP-0060 | Update to v2 (Andrew Westberg) - cardano-foundation/CIPs#502

  • Case in point for why CIP authors need to specify their own version schemes.

CIP-0048? | NFT metadata references and payloads ("Jack" + Adam Dean has chipped in) - cardano-foundation/CIPs#249

  • I agreed to resolve this with CIP88 & post exactly what we are waiting for.
  • as resolved, I did long "overhaul" review of our oldest CIP here: cardano-foundation/CIPs#249 (review)

[CIP-0030 updates]

  • CIP-0030 | Better describe API extension compatibility (Steven Johnson @stevenj) - cardano-foundation/CIPs#486
    • he's present & is introducing it (tech talk with KT)
    • Problem with CIP labels is that:
      • without versions, we don't know if the CIP has even been merged yet
      • KT suggests adding a commit hash ("what version of the CIP really supporting in the wallet")
      • NOTE this also answers Mixaxim's nag about the version number... the GitHub commit hash IS the version number.
      • Also maybe adding a "draft" tag...
  • RAN OUT OF TIME precisely here (only covered this particular one)
  • CIP-0030 | Add chain id to differentiate between testnets
  • CIP-0030 | Adding optional networkId parameter to .enable
  • CIP-0030 | deprecate signTx & add chain signing

RAN OUT OF TIME here.

CIP-0077? | Verified Stake Pool Identity - cardano-foundation/CIPs#361

  • WATCH OUT FOR HIM he was bumped in #63 meeting!  Dennis Mittmann @Maetti79
  • We ran out of time again... but thankfully he wasn't present this time.

Last Check

CIP-0084? | Ledger evolution (meta) - Jared - cardano-foundation/CIPs#456

  • Discord consensus: do "Last Check" at next meeting as a final call for objections.

CIP-0057? | Plutus Smart-Contract Blueprints - KT - https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/258READY TO MERGE (Ryan & I already reviewed it - 3 editors total OK)

  • Agreed to merge after the meeting (via Discord) once KT does final editing check.