-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 334
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
* adding notes for 3/16 * Update 03-16-2021.md * Update 03-16-2021.md markdown cleanup
- Loading branch information
Showing
2 changed files
with
186 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,185 @@ | ||
| **Table of Contents:** | ||
|
|
||
| - [Summary](#summary) | ||
| - [Editors Meeting Flow](#editors-meeting-flow) | ||
| - [March 16 2021 notes](#march-16-2021-notes) | ||
| * [Triage](#triage) | ||
| + [PR62 - Update to CIP-0010](#Update-to-CIP-0010) | ||
| * [Last Check](#last-check) | ||
| + [PR61 - Update to CIP-0013](#Update-to-CIP-0013) | ||
| + [PR65 - Update to CIP-0013](#Update-to-CIP-0013) | ||
| + [PR64 - User-facing Asset Fingerprint](#User-facing-Asset-Fingerprint) | ||
| * [Review](#review) | ||
| + [PR57 - Key Serialization formats](#Key-Serialization-formats) | ||
| + [PR66 - Fair Min Fees](#Fair-Min-Fees) | ||
| + [PR21 - Non-centralizing Rankings](#Non-Centralizing-Rankings) | ||
| * [Discussions](#discussions) | ||
| * [Close](#close) | ||
| - [Extra](#extra) | ||
| * [Current CIPs in the CIP repository and their status](#current-cips-in-the-cip-repository-and-their-status) | ||
| * [CIP creation process as a Sequence Diagram](#cip-creation-process-as-a-sequence-diagram) | ||
| * [Understanding CIPs further](#understanding-cips-further) | ||
| ## Summary | ||
|
|
||
| Rough writeup of 3/16/21 Editors meeting notes taken during that day's CIP meeting, to increase transparency and dialogue with the community regarding proposed changes, implementations and considerations. | ||
| <sub>_Notes might contain errors or miss pieces - call out issues as needed_ | ||
| </sub> | ||
| Editors meetings are [public](https://www.crowdcast.io/cips-biweekly), [recorded](https://www.crowdcast.io/cips-biweekly) and [summarized](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/BiweeklyMeetings): do join and participate for discussions/PRs of significances to you. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Editors Meeting Flow | ||
| - [x] **Triage/Review**: Some CIPs might fall out of grace or not get updated, a CIP that hasn’t seen activity for 3 months should be checked on, and appropriate action taken. Ex: did any of the recent changes obsolete current CIPs? Consider ‘Active’ -> ‘Obsolete’ transitions.. | ||
| - [x] **Last Check**: Review of the PRIOR meetings Decisions - if no objection, apply change (effectively a two week lag from decision to action, as a grace period) | ||
| - [x] **New CIPs Review**: CIPs up for review should be looked over collectively, with discussion where needed. (on top of the asynchronous reviews) | ||
| PR -> ‘Draft’: Needs format + approval. | ||
| ‘Draft’ -> ‘Proposed’: Needs a PLAN towards Active + implementation. | ||
| ‘Proposed’ -> ‘Active’: Objective criteria as laid out observed, and consensus agreeing. | ||
| - [x] **Current Discussions**: What the current CIPs discussions are on social media / forums / Discord. | ||
| - [x] **Close**: Recap of actions taken and decisions. List the CIPs that are due for review. Distribution of the minutes via mailing list. | ||
|
|
||
| ## March 16 2021 notes | ||
| **Attending Editors**: Matthias, Sebastien, Duncan, Frederic | ||
|
|
||
| ### Triage | ||
| #### Update to CIP-0010 | ||
| - ([PR62](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/62) - Update to CIP-0010) | ||
| **F** - I think I might have been getting the request for rebase wrong, is this correct/good to go here? | ||
| **M** - This PR wants to keep things separate = moving content to a different location, out of the readme file. This PR makes the registry easily parseable by tools, instead of having to manually parse a readme. The dynamic one you want to have in a structured format. Checking in as it was rebased last week... Looks good. | ||
| => Merging **NOW** | ||
|
|
||
| ### Last Check | ||
|
|
||
| #### Update to CIP-0013 | ||
| ([PR61](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/61) and [PR65](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/65) - Updates to CIP-0013) | ||
| **Frederic** - Both 65 and 61 were setup as "Last Check". To be merged this week if feasible. | ||
| **Robert** - I don't know what PR65 woud actually do: There's really only been one technical description of how the SPO links would be added to the URI scheme. PR65 is incomplete. So CIP-0013 should be the one that has been outlined: PR61. Suggesting PR65 as a separate CIP would be logical. | ||
| **Duncan** - Can we go over the differences between PR61 and PR65? | ||
| **R** - The resistance that Nick had to using the StakePool names as keys also would prevent them from having values. So when the StakePool links would be accomodating the delegation portfolios and we have a problem with not being ablt to use pairs and have to use a complicated schemes with tuples in order to assign these stakepools a value in a haphazardous way... and that's been the question we have asked for PR65 / during the previous CIP Editors meeting. I think Nico wanted to note there were some things that were technically not attractive about using the highly variable stakepool names as keys instead of predicable ones but unfortunately that's the only way to make the representation scheme concise and resistant to errors. | ||
| **D** - And then the ones that has to do with the security issue is involved with names, they have to use local lists and so on, which pools they actually refer to. | ||
| **R** - That seems like it would be a challenge for BOTH approaches: You will always have to check the consistency of the stakepool name anways, the Question is weither they will be keys or values. | ||
| **F** - The two approaches should be fine if conflicting - Sebastien? | ||
| **Sebastien** - Just conflicting about which should get the "CIP13" name. Maybe make more sense as "CIP13a + CIP13b". However I am not sure we want to go down that road. | ||
| **D** - I think they should be standalone CIPs if they extend a specific CIP. If genuine disagreements that is, we just want to make sure what is proposed is a well formed technical proposal. | ||
| **S** - Originally there seemed to be only one path - I know that for Emurgo we will go with Nico's. | ||
| **R** - Hard for me since I can't see what the alternative URI would be. | ||
| **S** - It's been informally described, in github comments and such. 65 is not up to date. | ||
| **R** - PR65 says "it's wrong to use the stakepool names as keys" and wrong to use "stake" where we really should be using "delegate" for stakepools. But the question of what happens when the values themselves need to have values was never addressed, except perhaps privately as noted by Sebastien. So we've been really discussing the idea that the stakepool names actually can be keys, becaue they are expected someday to have values when we have delegation portfolios. It seems when the links have to refer to delegation portfolios and the stakepool keys need to have values this would cause problems. | ||
| **S** - It looks like PR65 is up to date. | ||
| **R** - But it doesn't address the question about when you have to associate a value or a proportion with a stakepool - so in that sense it is incomplete. This actually was a PR for an independant CIP on the 29th of September 2020. Sebastien suggested in October this be reintroduced as a change to CIP13. The Original CIP still had a more thought out plan. | ||
| **D** - Summarizing: The concern is we might be merging (in CIP13) something that might make future things more complicated for multipool delegation, and you want some consideration to take place to think about either is more useful down the line than the other.. | ||
| **R** - Right, would be useful. We have all the info for 61 but not yet for 65.. | ||
| **D** - Sebastien can we add more content in there? (for 65?) | ||
| **S** - Yes, on the todo list for 65. I don't mind waiting for merging this. | ||
| **R** - It looks like Emurgo has stakepool links for 2021. | ||
| **D** - All things equal, merging things quicker is better. But we want to make sure we have a design that isn't prematurely merged and can extend to multi delegation pool. | ||
| **S** - We are the only company that has implemented CIP13 and the extension for now as far as I know. So I don't mind waiting until Nico adds in the changes he wants to add. | ||
| **R** - We may not be rushing to implement it, but if this stakepool links scheme were available, then the SPO would be rushing to implementing it. | ||
| **S** - I don't think so as no wallet would be implementing it at that point.. | ||
| **D** - If we do have a closeback that people are happy and agree on then it's much more likely to be implemented in Deadalus.. | ||
| **R** - right, this is a lot easier to consider implementing on something that has been agreed on as a standard... | ||
| **D** - It sounds like we want to wait at least a little bit to see where things go... What would we be waiting for and who would be writing the extension from here? | ||
| **S** - I can have Nico add the missing parts for 65 within two weeks. | ||
| **F** - This might be for a separate group - the CIP platform is not intent on saying which is better. Looking too far freezes us. | ||
| **S** - I agree. And propose a/b options. | ||
| **D** - Happy to wait a reasonable ammont of time. Yes we don't want to block, but we could see if there is a consensus resolution that might make things easier. If we don't have to have competing CIPs, better. This isn't so urgent, no wallet yet implement it, if we can spend a little bit more time that everyone can agree on is worth it. | ||
| **R** - Let me know if there are unanswered technical questions and I will jump into it. | ||
| **D** - Will it be clear to Nicolas what we are interested in here? | ||
| **S** - Yes. | ||
| **R** - I would like to see things in the open so we can make sure it's not (in fact) a bureaucratic issue. | ||
| **F** - Tabling 61 and [PR65](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/65) - they were as "Last-Check" but now pushed to "Review" stage. | ||
| => Moved [PR61](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/61) & [PR65](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/65) back to "Review" for next meeting. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| #### User-facing Asset Fingerprint | ||
| ([PR64](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/64) - User-facing Asset Fingerprint) | ||
| **S** - The main thing with this one was dealing with the merge conflicts. I think that's done. | ||
| **M** - Hasn't changed in a fwe weeks. I added in a typescript implementation from Sebastien. | ||
| **S** - Implemented by a few places, Daedalus, Yoroi, Adalite, Blockfrost... Good to merge. | ||
| **D** - adding my green tick as well. | ||
| => Merging **NOW** | ||
|
|
||
| ### Review | ||
| #### Key Serialization Formats | ||
| ([PR57](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/57) - potential CIP-0016) | ||
| **F** - This is looking at the various keys using accross Cardano. Matthias did you go over this one last time? | ||
| **M** - Maybe "Cryptographic key serialization" format is a bit too generic, because we don't really touch to vrf or other types of keys: We could maybe rename this CIP. | ||
| **D** - I have not looked at this one recently and this is one of the ones that requires more brainpower. We have a new Cryptographer that just joined, this might be a good task to look into to review and check if the CIP here is comprehensive. The good thing about this CIP is that this is documenting - so this just needs to be accurate. | ||
| **M** - This implements exactly what we have in both Cardano Adrestia and Cardano CLI and was discussed in Slack historically to agree on forma... Really how we want to serialize things and how does it compare to existing implementation and before (basically Jormungandr). The new one is more on the compact and it does recomputes some things on the fly. I guess both are fine but we could ask cryptographers, and maybe there's a good reason to package the private and public key and not recompute it all the time. We could almost go one step further: This specifies the datapart of the Bech32 payload that we specified in [CIP-0005](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0005/CIP-0005.md), but only for 4 of them. We have maybe 20 objects or so now in CIP5... so we could go for an expansion of CIP5, starting with the keys, but also going into payloads. I think we could document all of them. This very strongly seem to connect to CIP5, so maybe we should make that connection a bit more explicit. | ||
| **D** - Right, this is covering the greater compatibility issues. I feel someone should spend some time and brainpower on this. Because Matthias and I are rather busy.. | ||
| **M** - agree. | ||
| **F** - Forward to Cryptographer at IOHK, Duncan to flag. | ||
| **D** - The new cryptographer just started (so two weeks too short). | ||
| => Moved OUT to give time ... | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| #### Fair Min Fees | ||
| ([PR66](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/66) - potential CIP-0017) | ||
| **F** - This is about Minimum fixed pool fees. Flagged to Colin and Kevin who are taking it to the researchers.. We might not be able to look at it as-is. | ||
| **D** - Unless there is a strong push from authors or other we should wait for follow-on from researchers. | ||
| => Moved OUT to give time (for research) ... | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| #### Non Centralizing Rankings | ||
| ([PR21](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/21) - potential CIP-0018) | ||
| **D** - This one makes sense to wait as we need to figure out how the order of the changes must align with the system - here changing the underlying assumption have to come first, then the utility function... Shawn understands, that's why this one is on how. | ||
| **F** - Can we look at the spec changes themselves? | ||
| **D** - This is referring to the [design document](https://hydra.iohk.io/build/5737201/download/1/delegation_design_spec.pdf). If needed the repo [Readme](https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-ledger-specs/blob/master/README.md) has links to all the docs. | ||
| **F** - What does non-myopic mean here? | ||
| **D** - Myopic is what happens "immediately", non-myopic is "in the end" / at equilibrium. So non-myopic is "k pools saturated in the end. Shawn's proposal is that we not use the non-myopic and have all pools saturate. With my non-editor hat on, I don't agree with this proposal here. But that's why it's worth discussing with researchers. It's completely well written. On the technical grounds I happen to disagree with it, but isn't relevant as an editor, but we could see what comes out of that discussion. | ||
| **F** - Communication in the Github Thread has been very helpful to provide visibility - will flag to researcher and remind to update in the github thread themselves. | ||
| => Moved OUT to give time (for research) ... | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Discussions | ||
| N/A | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Close | ||
| => Merge **NOW**: [PR62 - Update to CIP-0010](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/62) Update to CIP-0010 | ||
| => Merge **NOW**: [PR64 - User-facing Asset Fingerprint](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/64) (‘CIP-0014’) | ||
| => Moved OUT to give time (forwarded to cryptographer) [PR57 - "Key Serialization Formats"](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/57) (tentative ‘CIP-0016’) | ||
| => Moved OUT to give time (for research) [PR66 - "Fair Min Fees"](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/66) (tentative 'CIP-0017') | ||
| => Moved OUT to give time (for research) [PR21 - Non-centralizing Rankings](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/21) (tentative 'CIP-0018') | ||
| => Moved OUT to give time (for contrasting with 65) [PR61 - Update to CIP-0013](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/61) - Update to CIP-0013 | ||
| => Moved OUT to give time (requesting extra details) [PR65 - Update to CIP-0013](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/65) - Update to CIP-0013 | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
| ## Extra | ||
|
|
||
| ### Current CIPs in the CIP repository and their status | ||
|
|
||
| |# |Title | Status | | ||
| | ----------------- |:----------------|:-------------------- | | ||
| | 1 | [CIP Process](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0001) | Active | | ||
| | 2 | [Coin Selection Algorithms](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0002) | Draft | | ||
| | 3 | [Wallet key generation](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0003) | Draft | | ||
| | 4 | [Wallet Checksum](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0004) | Draft | | ||
| | 5 | [Common Bech32 Prefixes](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0005) | Draft | | ||
| | 6 | [Stake Pool Extended Metadata](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0006) | Draft | | ||
| | 7 | [Curve Pledge Benefit](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0007) | Draft | | ||
| | 8 | [Message Signing](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0008) | Draft | | ||
| | 9 | [Initial Parameters](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0009) | Draft | | ||
| | 10 | [Transaction Metadata Label Registry](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0010) | Draft | | ||
| | 11 | [Staking key chain for HD wallets](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0011) | Draft | | ||
| | 12 | [On-chain SPO-to-delegates communication](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0012) | Draft | | ||
| | 13 | [Cardano URI Scheme](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0013) | Draft | | ||
| | 14 | [User-facing Asset Fingerprint](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0014) | Draft | | ||
| | 15 | [Catalyst Registration Transaction](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0015) | Draft | | ||
| | 1852 | [HD Wallets for Cardano](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-1852) | Draft | | ||
| | 1853 | [HD Stake Pool Cold Keys](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-1853) | Draft | | ||
|
|
||
| :bulb: - For more details about Statuses, refer to [CIP1](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0001). | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### CIP creation process as a Sequence Diagram | ||
| _"Alice has a Cardano idea she'd like to build more formally":_ | ||
|  | ||
|
|
||
| ### Understanding CIPs further | ||
| [](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7U10EfqXJw) | ||
| [](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnw7k7VKVyo) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters