Update ERC-6956: Move to Review #43
Conversation
tbergmueller
force-pushed
the
erc6956_review
branch
from
87b504a
to
ba664d6
Compare
|
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
eip-review-bot
changed the title
Corresponds to ethereum/EIPs#7903 - Remove links to draft/stagnant EIPs - Add recommendation for lockable() interface - Move to Review
tbergmueller
force-pushed
the
erc6956_review
branch
from
b43acd1
to
28d7cec
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should move the "minimal typescript example to generate an ATTESTATION" into the reference implementation section.
The use cases in your rationale section seem to focus on justifying the EIP as a whole, and so should appear in your motivation section. The rationale section should explain technical choices made within the EIP while the motivation is the place to justify the whole proposal.
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
The commit 300efa3 (as a parent of 8f88b63) contains errors. |
To make HTMLProofer happy
Corresponds to ethereum/EIPs#7903
The EIP is implemented and used for several months now. As far as we know mainly for customers of ours though and projects we're involved in.
Nonetheless, the draft can be considered stable and has also been reviewed by members of https://www.swissdao.space/
In this review no major or critical technical issues or vulnerabilites have been raised, but it has been recommended to simplify the EIP.
In review stage we intend to discuss the possibility of making the anchor <> tokenId mapping optional, which would reduce complexity and also reduce gas-fees.
Besides Events, a backwards-compatible solution without this mapping should be possible enabling already existing contracts to still be supported. Not strictly in the ERC-165 sense, but uint256 (tokenId) and bytes32 (anchor) can technically be interchanged. This is possible by "just" using anchors as tokenIDs.
This merge-request:
Removes HTML-TODO comments
Removes links to stagnant- and draft ERCs (replaced one in related work with backticks, since I think it is still worth noting this draft exists). Notified authors in the respective discussion threads to ping me if their proposal is moving forward
Added ERC-5192 as recommendation for lockable()