Meeting Minutes: Technical Specification of General Layer 2 Blockchain Scalability Solutions for EVM-compatible public Blockchains WG

Meeting Wed, 22 August 2024, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Nicolas Cosigny (EF), Dom (Skroll)

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Collect approvals for L2 Transaction Fee API spec PR
Discuss L2 Transaction Statuses Work item: PR, Issue and Eth Magician Post
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Andreas Freund (AI aided)

Notes:

Welcome
Selected Scribe: Andreas (with AI support)
Introduction of new participants: Sam Bacha
L2 Transaction Fee API PR Approval:
- Need to follow up with Offchain Labs, Ops Labs, and Metis for approvals.
L2 Transaction Status Proposal:
- The WG members reviewed again the proposed standardized transaction statuses, codes, and their trust assumptions.
- No changes requested
- No Open & Other items
- Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 8 August 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting canceled due to lack of attendance.

Meeting Wed, 24 July 2024, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Landon Gingerich (Matter Labs), Sam Bacha (Manifold Finance)

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Collect approvals for L2 Transaction Fee API spec PR
Discuss L2 Transaction Statuses Work item: Issue and Eth Magician Post
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Andreas Freund (AI aided)

Notes:

Welcome
Selected Scribe: Andreas (with AI support)
Introduction of new participants: Sam Bacha
L2 Transaction Fee API PR Approval:
- Need to follow up with Offchain Labs, Ops Labs, and Metis for approvals.
- Sam agreed to review the PR and provide feedback.
L2 Transaction Status Proposal:
- The WG discussed the proposed standardized transaction statuses and their trust assumptions. Andreas emphasized the importance of standardizing the statuses across implementations while allowing for additional data based on specific client architectures. The discussion focused on the definitions and trust assumptions for different transaction statuses.
- Andreas explained the different statuses and guarantees associated with L.2 transactions. He also discussed the varying guarantees depending on the squencer's ordering protocol and whether it's centralized or decentralized. Furthermore, he explained that the L.2 transaction finalization guarantee is equivalent to an L.1 transaction finalization guarantee and a finalized L.1 block. However, he noted that the finalization guarantee depends on the consensus algorithm used.
- The WG did not believe that the current proposal needed any changes before a RollCall breakout session. Andreas agreed to organize such as session with the RollCall organizers.
Open Items:
- Andreas and Sam discussed the inclusion of L2 transaction status in the return payload of the RPC method "getTransactionBySenderAndNonce". Sam explained that the method's initial purpose was for cross-chain communication, but it could also be useful for tracking transactions after system failures or detecting reorganizations. Andreas questioned how to distinguish between transactions dropped from the mempool versus reorganized, suggesting the need for archive nodes to retain transaction histories. WG agreed that knowing the reason for a missing transaction is important for deciding on the appropriate action.
- Andreas and Sam discussed the handling of replacement transactions by clients. Sam explained that clients generally don't evict transactions unless they're priced at least 10% higher or are conflicting views from different nodes. Andreas clarified that the decision depends on the builder and their view of the public and private Mempools. They also discussed potential contention when submitting transactions to multiple builders, but Sam stated that this doesn't often occur. The possibility of flash loan transactions causing issues was raised by Andreas.
Meeting Adjourned

Next steps:

Andreas to propose a breakout session for the RollCall to discuss the L2 transaction statuses proposal.
Andreas to turn the L2 transaction statuses proposal into an RIP after the breakout session.
Sam to review the L2 Transaction Fee API spec and provide feedback.
Andreas to add Sam to the email list for regular updates.

Meeting Wed, 10 July 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Canceled because of EthCC Brussels

Meeting Wed, 26 June 2024, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Cody Burns (Accenture), Kelvin Fichter (Ops Labs), Andreas Freund (EF)

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Collect approvals L2 Transaction Fee API spec PR (PR#53)
Discuss L2 Transaction Statuses (see here in the PR and also see discussion in the RollUp Call Telegram Channel)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Andreas Freund (AI aided)

Notes:

Welcome
Selected Scribe
Introduction of new participants: None
L2 Transaction Fee API PR Approval:
- Cody approved the PR. Kelvin still needs to review and approve it.
L2 Transaction Status Discussion:
- After a discussion, WG participants agreed to update the spec requirement on the L2 transaction status in the GET API definition to only require it to be a string, and allow the specific status to be unique to an L2 client until a standard for L2 Transaction statuses has been created.
- Participants agreed to create an Eth Magician's post with suggested statuses and definitions and share with the ecosystem for feedback.

Next steps:

Andreas will update the L2 Transaction Fee API spec PR to require the transaction status to be a string with a value depending on the specific L2 client before a standard naming convention with definitions has been agreed upon.
Andreas will post suggested status definitions on Eth Magician site for ecosystem feedback.

Meeting Wed, 12 June 2024, 7:00 am PT

Canceled Due To Lack of Discussion Topics. L2 Transaction Fee API Spec and the L2 Keystore paper are ready for approvals, and, conversely, publication.

Meeting Wed, 29 May 2024, 7:00 am PT

Canceled Due To Consensus 2024 Conference.

Meeting Wed, 15 May 2024, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Landon Gingerich (Matter Labs), Mohammad (Skroll)

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Finalize WG article
Collect approvals L2 Transaction Fee API spec PR (PR#53)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Andreas Freund (AI aided)

Notes:

Welcome
Selected Scribe
Introduction of new participants: Mohammad from Skroll.
WG Article Finalization: Decided to finalize async through comments
L2 Transaction Fee API PR Approval:
- Review of PR content for new Participant in particular data schema and requirements.
- Discussed extensively that there is seemingly no standard definition of a transaction status for L2s, what it should look like and how to go about creating one, if none can be found
Meeting adjourned
Action Items:
- Andreas to research if there is a standard definition of a transaction status for L1s and L2s and report back during the next meeting and update PR.

Meeting Wed, 1 May 2024, 7:00 am PT

Canceled due to lack of attendance.

Meeting Wed, 17 April 2024, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Karen Scarborough (EEA/Microsoft), Marny (Taiko), Dror Tirosh (EF)

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Discuss new discussion draft of article and WG feedback
Review of updated draft of the L2 Transaction Fee API spec including review a draft of the full spec with requirements (PR#53)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Andreas Freund (AI aided)

Notes:

Welcome
Selected Scribe
Introduction of new participants: Marny from Taiko, Dror from EF's Account Abstraction initiative, and Karen, EEA Executive Director.
L2 Transaction Fee API
- Brief Review of data schema for the new participants.
- Controversially discussed the optional transparency requirements e.g. L2 Gas Price derivation method type, description and source parameters in the response body. Andreas pointed out that they serve as a transparency scaffolding for client teams to address enterprise requirements, and relevant regulatory fee transparency requirements, but are not mandated at this point. Karen reemphasized the importance of transparency for enterprises, and the many misconceptions about L2s present outside of the immediate L2 ecosystem. Dror pointed out that there are potentially significant trust/security issues based on the chose price methods such as oracles or fee markets. Andreas pointed out that it will be up to the end user to make the decision as to the level of trust they put into a L2 client, as is already the case today.
- Dror pointed out that the API is not directly applicable for EIP-2771 (Meta Transactions) and EIP-4337 (Account Abstraction) User Actions at the level of the end user since fees are often paid by a Paymaster. Hence, the API would not be directly relevant for the end user, and has limited use in the case of transactions aggregated across multiple end user as in the case of relayer networks for account abstraction. Andreas said that he would update the scope of the specification to take the discussed limitation into account.
- There was no time left for additional agenda items, and the meeting adjourned.

Meeting Wed, 3 April 2024, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Derek (Offchain Labs), Landon Gingerich (Matter Labs), Carlos (Coinbase)

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Discuss new discussion draft of article and WG feedback
Review of updated draft of the L2 Transaction Fee API spec including review a draft of the full spec with requirements (PR#53)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Zoom AI with human edits by Andreas Freund

Notes:

Welcome
No new participants
New L2 WG Article Review
- Andreas discussed intent, structure and content of the article draft.
- WG requires more time for review but intent and direction of the article is good, and agreed-upon.
- Review of updated draft of the L2 Transaction Fee API spec:
  - Andreas walked through the spec and explained the changes that were proposed and implemented based on previous feedback. He also walked through the specification structure as mandated by OASIS and why this particular structure is required.
  - The WG agreed that the spec is good so far with some minor editorial updates. Testability statements can be added to the PR.
  - Andreas updated the group on the proposed RollCall breakout session on the API spec. He had not heard anything back from Ansgar at the EF.
Action Items:
- WG to continue reviewing the article draft and the spec.
- Andreas to add testability statements before the next WG meeting.
- Andreas to follow-up with Ansgar on breakout session.
Meeting adjourned.

Meeting Wed, 20 March 2024, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Carlos Matallana (Polygon zkEVM), Kevaundray Wedderburn

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Organization Update on EEA-OASIS Community Projects
Continued Review of updated draft of L2 Transaction Fee API spec
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Zoom AI with human edits by Andreas Freund

Notes:

Welcome.
New participants introduction: Carlos Matallana (Polygon zkEVM) and Kevaundray Wedderburn
Organization Update on EEA-OASIS Community Projects: Andreas gave an update summarizing that there are no real changes for the WG except the changing of the URLs for the WG's Github repo (EEA -> Ethereum) and the removal of the EEA logo. Rest stays as-is.
Transaction Fee API Spec Review:
- Andreas reviewed the new requirements document (not yet a PR since testability statements are still missing since requirements have not yet finally been agreed upon)
- Discussed the concerns raised by Kelvin before about the currency data property as not readily supportable by client teams. Carlos liked the addition of currency to improve UX and since it is optional it should not impact clients teams too much. Carlos suggested to extend the enumeration on values to include native tokens.
- Kelvin, Carlos and Andreas discussed the to addition of a custom extension to the transactionCall object to accommodate new transactions types such as blob transactions. Kelvin suggested to have the transactionCall object be just an RLP encoded string of the transaction to be estimated. Carlos suggested that this would break the current commonly adopted schema for gas estimation and clients already have the capability to do the RLP encoding. Hence, no need to give it an RLP encoding as long as the input property is properly structured and encoded.
- Andreas reviewed the rest of the spec without any relevant comments.
- WG agreed that the spec needs more eyes on it, especially from the RollCall group. Andreas said that he had reached out to one of the chairs (Ansgar Diderich) to schedule a RollCall breakout session to discuss the spec with the client teams.
- No more items to be discussed. Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 6 March 2024, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism)

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review of updated draft of L2 Transaction Fee API spec
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Andreas Freund

Notes:

Welcome.
No new participants.
Review of updated draft of L2 Transaction Fee API spec
- Kelvin expressed concerns about data properties such as currency other than GigWei and ETH since it would not be native to a client. Furthermore, Kelvin expressed doubts that if the API spec deviates too much from current supported formats that adoption would be impacted.
- Andreas pointed out that most data properties in the spec are already available on a client, and are either already exposed or can be relatively easily exposed. However, Andreas agreed that adoption is key.
- Lengthy discussion revolved around strategies to solicit a wider ecosystem feedback. It was agreed that Andreas would get in touch with Ansgar from the EF RollCall to request a RollCall breakout session for an L2 Transaction Fee API spec discussion to start eliciting feedback from client teams on the spec as a next step besides posting it again in the RollCall Telegram channel. Kevin agreed to co-present the proposal.
- Meeting adjourned.
- Action Item: Andreas to contact Ansgar to get a breakout session on the books.

Meeting Wed, 21 February 2024, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Derek (Offchain Labs), Landon Gingerich (Matter Labs)

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review of 1st draft of L2 Transaction Fee API spec
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Zoom AI with human edits by Andreas Freund

Notes:

Welcome
New Participant Introduction: Derek from Offchain Labs
L2 Transaction Fee API Specification Proposal Discussion
- WG proceeded to review the first draft of a proposal for an L2 transaction fee API spec, which is an open API 3.0 compliant specification with two endpoints. One endpoint estimates a proposed L2 transaction fee based on a transaction, while the other is for the actual L2 transaction fee charged after transaction submission.
- WG discussed the definition and usage of the priority field in the API, and discussed making the priority field optional such that application developers can either respond with either one fee if a priority is specified or with a range of fee options if it is null or not specified.
- WG agreed that if the currency is not specified, the default value should be the gas unit of account of the target chain.
- Andreas emphasized the importance of transparency in gas pricing and the inclusion of specific fields in the gas price calculation. He clarified that these fields would help L2 operators comply with regulatory transparency requirements, especially those set by the Federal Trade Commission.
- Andreas and Landon discussed the data fee and execution fee, and how they are structured. Landon raised a concern about the distinction between transaction posted to the L1 and corresponding data posted to one or more data availability layers. Andreas proposed the idea of making the data fee an array with an additional fee, if the target is one or more data availability layers apart from the L1. No final decision was made on the topic to allow other WG participants to weigh in.
- Andreas discussed the structure of the priority fee, which has the same structure as the execution fee, data fee, and an L2 priority gas price. The L2 gas price may be the same as the L2 priority gas price, but it may also differ. Andreas also explained the second endpoint, the L2 transaction fee for a submitted transaction. Andreas proposed adding a transaction status field to the response body, which Landon agreed would be beneficial.
- Andreas concluded by suggesting to make editorial updates, add a new version to the issue, and revisit it in two weeks for further input before finalizing it into a spec document.
Project Status, Co-Chair Departure, and Github Contribution
- Dan informed the WG that the project governing board decided to maintain the status quo for a few more months until at least the end of May. He also shared his personal news about leaving the EF at the end of March to work on other ecosystem projects, and he plans to step down as Co-Chair. A search for potential co-chairs is underway. Andreas invited Derek to add himself as a contributor on Github.
Next steps:
- Andreas will update the spec based on the discussion and add a new proposal version.

Meeting Wed, 07 February 2024, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Kelvin Fichter (OP Labs), Landon Gingerich (Matter Labs)

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Organizational Update from the EEA
Update from the last RollCall breakout session in transaction fee markets
Review our previous discussions on our next work item, and, hopefully, come to a decision on the next work item
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Zoom AI with human edits by Andreas Freund

Notes:

Enterprise Ethereum Alliance Leadership Change and Contract Dissolution Andreas Freund and Dan Shaw discussed organizational updates, particularly the leadership change and budget restructuring within the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA). They also touched on the likely dissolution of the EA's contract with OASIS, which has implications for the hosting of their working group's repository. Dan expressed openness to new members taking on chair roles and noted that there is no immediate need for changes in the working group's operations, except for potential future branding adjustments. Andreas Freund confirmed that he would share any significant updates from the upcoming OASIS Project Governance Board (PGB) meeting with the team.
Report from Last RollCall Meeting: Feasibility of L2 Transaction Fee Markets Andreas Freund discussed the feasibility of a fee market with futures and options, which could potentially lead to fee stability and predictability for L2s and their users. He suggested that builders could hedge their exposure through the futures market. Andreas Freund also relayed a conversation with Declan from the Linea team about their plans to create a L2 Transaction Fee API, and that it would be good to start the standardization process now.
L2 Transaction Fee API Standardization for Wallet Integration Proposed Andreas Freund proposed the creation of a standardized L2 Transaction Fee API interface compliant with the current :2 Transaction Fee spec for wallets to pull in. The team discussed the potential benefits of such a standardized interface, which could simplify integration and potentially reduce issues. Daniel confirmed that the target of standardization would be the interface. Kelvin suggested focusing on the transaction type, but Andreas Freund pointed out that answers to this are not yet ready due to variability in the L2 designs. Landon agreed with the proposal, suggesting that setting up standardization would save a lot of potential issues. Andreas Freund suggested posting the idea in the roll call channel to see if there were people who wanted to contribute directly.
WG Planning Andreas will create a new L2 Github issue and socialize it in the RollCall Telegram channel about standardizing an API for L2 transaction fee components and invite everyone to contribute their thoughts.

Meeting Wed, 24 January 2024, 7:00 am PT

Canceled due to lack of attendance.

Meeting Wed, 10 January 2024, 7:00 am PT

Canceled due to lack of attendance.

Meeting Wed, 27 December 2023, 7:00 am PT

Canceled due to holiday season.

Meeting Wed, 13 December 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Tas dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Declan Fox (ConsenSys), Kelvin Fichter (OP Labs), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Nikolai (Metis)

Agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review and approve the Layer 2 Transaction Fee Specification, and merge if enough approvals are received
Discuss overlap/collaboration with the Roll Call group (L2 technical group to create L2 EIPs (not gonna say RIP)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Zoom AI with human edits by Andreas Freund

Notes:

Andreas introduced a new AI bot for note taking and welcomed Declan, the product at Linea, to the meeting for the first time. Declan introduced himself. Anais mentioned that the L2 report will be published by Friday and shared across various platforms including social media and the EEA Newsletter. Andreas then moved on to discuss the topic of transaction fees.
Andreas explained the adjustments made to the transaction fee PR, including removing the base fee, introducing a new data fee and updating the definition of the execution fee. The priority fee definition was not changed. Andreas noted that these changes have not altered any roles or the definitions of transaction types. He also mentioned the addition of some new requirements R6 - R11. Declan, Kelvin and Nikolai confirmed their understanding of the changes.
Andreas and Declan discussed the display of gas prices and costs as part of a data fee for L1 transactions. It was agreed to include the gas price charged by L2 in the requirement (R6) and a note about potential discrepancies from the current L1 gas price. The testability statement was also reviewed, which involve verifying the display of L1 gas prices and costs in the data feed, with the passing criteria being accurate display of L1 gas and costs in the data feed.
Andreas and Declan discussed the implementation of tests to ensure compliance. Declan expressed concerns about maintaining compatibility and the potential for compatibility issues with various tooling, while Andreas suggested that breaking out specific fee components might be necessary, and would be up to wallet implementations. L2 would just have to ensure that the components were available for display.
The WG discussed the method for calculating gas prices in a data fee. The WG agreed on the need for a new L2 application to provide information on the utilized L1 gas price, including its derivation method. The WG also discussed the need to display the L2 gas cost as part of an execution fee.
Andreas requested the WG to review and approve the PR (#43). The WG also touched upon the potential overlap with the Roll Call group's discussions. Dan highlighted the importance of coordination and potential overlaps. There were early discussions about possible improvements to the EIP process with standards, but it was too early to determine its impact on their group.
Andreas proposed the idea of developing a purpose-built for key storage and identity management across different chains, especially rollups, as a next work item. He suggested that this could align with decentralized identity concepts already implemented in the W3C space. Andreas requested Kelvin, Declan, and Nikolai to consider this topic. Nikolai confirmed that their team is working on digital identity management, but they are more focused on physical key storage. Declan noted that the topic is still under discussion and wallets are currently leading the development. Kelvin, however, had not personally considered the issue. Andreas then announced that they would open an issue for further discussion.
WG decided to cancel the working group call on the 27th and resume meetings in the New Year.
Next Steps:
- Andreas will update the PR with the discussed changes.
- Andreas to open an issue on the new work item proposal.
- Declan and Kelvin will review and approve the PR.

Meeting Wed, 29 November 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Kelvin Fichter (OP Labs), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Landon Gingerich (Matter Labs)

Agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review open comments on the Ethereum Layer 2 and Scalability Solutions for the Enterprise: An Update
Review approvals to the Layer 2 Transaction Fee Specification, and merge if enough approvals are received
Review 1st draft of the L2 Transaction Data Fee spec
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Notes:

Welcoming Attendees
Review open comments on the Ethereum Layer 2 and Scalability Solutions for the Enterprise: An Update
- Andreas, Daniel, and Anais discussed the removal of two security characterisitcs that were unclear / difficult to understand. Decision was made to remove the two characteristics. No other changes or removals were identified in the security section.
- Daniel discussed the number of confirmations for state channels and it was decided to add a footnote
- Andreas also mentioned that Omar had to respond to one open response item.
- Andreas discussed the pending tasks he needed to complete, including adding some footnotes and sending a reminder email for an approval.
EIP Process Improvements and Partnership Possibilities
- Dan discussed proposed improvements to the EIP process to enhance understanding of standards and processes based on discussion with EIP editors at Devconnect 2023. He also suggested the possibility of partnerships with established partners such as Oasis. Andreas suggested using recent EIP submissions based on OASIS templates as a best practice for EIPs.
Roll Call Group Alignment
- Anais shared her experience with the inaugural roll call. Group discussed that the chairs should participate in the Roll Call discussions to ensure alignment between the two efforts.
Transaction Fee Terminology Discussion (PR #43)
- The WG discussed the terminology for transaction fees, particularly the difference between an execution fee and a data fee. The WG clarified that in their internal discussions, the execution fee includes both the base fee and priority, while the data fee is an additional component. It was decided to rename the base fee to the execution fee and to explicitly call out to the data fee. It was also discussed to add verbiage to the data fee to cover future data costs such as data availability. Andreas to update definitions accordingly in the PR
Data Fee Requirements (Draft PR #50) Integration into PR #43
- After discussion it was decided to close the draft PR and integrate data fee requirements into Pr #43 and send it out for reapproval, which he expected to accomplish by the end of the week or early next week.
Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 1 November 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Rami Housani(Metis), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Tas Dienes (EF), Landon Gingerich (Matter Labs)

Scribe: Nikolai Prokhorenko

Agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review updates to the Layer 2 Transaction Fee Specification
Review open comments on the Ethereum Layer 2 and Scalability Solutions for the Enterprise: An Update
Review 1st draft of the L2 Transaction Data Fee spec
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Notes:

Welcoming Attendees
Review of updated L2 Transaction Fee Spec after new comments (no requirements changed, only definitions)
Andreas reviewd the comments on the document and resolved alost all of them based on completed editorial updates – Ethereum Layer 2 and Scalability Solutions and Enterprise V2
- Started review of the new table comparing characteristics of different L2 stacks and made updates where required. Review still ongoing
- David and Andreas discuss the term of Liveness and Data Availability Assumptions. Adding footnotes describing liveness and data availability in the L2 context
Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 18 October 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Kelvin Fichter (OP Labs), Tas Dienes (EF), Matt Pearring (Offchain Labs), Shawn Rogers (Accenture)

Agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review approvals on Transaction Fee spec and hopefully merge.
Continue the discussion on the L2 Data Transaction Fee issue and continue with a skeleton for the spec with the most important points that must be covered.
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Notes:

Welcoming Attendees
Review approvals on Transaction Fee spec
Daniel and Kelvin will complete their review after the meeting to signoff or comment, as needed
Kelvin will sign eCLA and PR as contributor
Review L2 Data Transaction Fee
- Kelvin to contribute Optimism approach
- Discussion of requirement that all fees be broken out
- Concerns were raised that this might be too limiting for a wallet UX as an example
- A wallet may choose to simplify display of the fee, but the breakdown is key to compliance in both Europe and the U.S. that require fees to end consumers to be transparent. The introduction of a gas price calculation were deemed out of scope
- A recommendation was made to make the requirement for L2 data transaction fee calculation algorithm or method verifiability more flexible
- Item 8: “The utilized L1 and L2 gas price SHOULD/MUST indicate if it was derived based on a calculation or a Gas Price Data Oracle, or a combination of both.” was left open for further discussion.
- Please review the 8 requirement in the Suggested set of initial requirements for the L2 Transaction Data Fee spec which will be merged soon
Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 4 October 2023, 7:00 am PT

Canceled due to lack of attendance.

Meeting Wed, 20 September 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Landon Gingerich (Matter Labs), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Rami Husani (Metis)

Agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review approvals on Transaction Fee spec and hopefully merge.
Discuss L2 Data Fee issues and create a skeleton for the spec with the most important points that must be covered.
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Anaïs Ofranc

Notes:

Welcoming Attendees
Issue 48 - L2 Data Transaction Fees
Daniel Goldman explained to the group how fees are calculated on Arbitrum
Daniel Goldman shared https://research.arbitrum.io/t/l1-calldata-data-pricing-sequencer-reimbursement-fee-pool-model/107
Daniel Goldman shared https://docs.arbitrum.io/arbos/l1-pricing#adjusting-the-l1-gas-basefee
Landon asked if data compression was used by Arbitrum from the start.
Daniel replied that data compression has been used since Nitro.
Landon shared the challenges faced by Matter Labs. He states that what Abritrum is doing would work for them.
The group discussed different fee models and mechanisms.
Andreas asked Daniel Goldman what he thinks should be standardized. They agreed that the questions of “how you charge” and the “moment when you charge” are very relevant here.
With Arbitrum, you charge the fees as signed in the transaction at the beginning. Then surplus and deficit have to be handled differently, amortized over future users but some L2s do it differently and charge afterwards, after the batch has been posted on the L1 and could expose users to “unpleasant surprises”.
Andreas explained that one approach could be to have two sets of requirements to address those two models.
Nikolai Prokhorenko shared the code showing how fees are calculated with Metis.
Andreas asked how this is handled when using account abstraction. How does the transaction fee get estimated ? Andreas suggests that it is in the same bucket as meta transactions, MEV pools and this is implementation specific.
Meeting adjounred

Meeting Wed, 6 September 2023, 7:00 am PT

Note: The WG was on summer hiatus from 12 July 2023 to 6 September 2023.

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Landon Gingerich (Matter Labs), Rami Husani (Metis), Shawn Rogers (Accenture)

Agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review approvals on Transaction Fee spec and hopefully merge.
Discuss L2 Data Fee issues and create a skeleton for the spec with the most important points that must be covered.
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Notes:

Welcome Landon Gingerich from Matter Labs, standing in from Omar from here on out.
Review new work items
- Initial draft of the L2 transaction fee specification - ethereum-oasis-op#43
  - Landon presented the transaction profile of zkSync Era and agrees with the need to standardize across other projects
    - L1 Call Data, Gas Fee for Data Stored on the L2
    - Suggestion made to standardize the calculation of base fees
    - Additional discussion
    - Noted that zkSync Era works primarily on state differences
  - Nikolai and Rami presented the Metis technical approach and will follow-up with more detail later after conferring with the team
    - Does not include L2 data on L1
    - Thinking about posting the data to L1 to support EIP 4844 or storing the data into the upcoming sequencer pool.
  - Ideally we would have 2 gas prices, 1 for L2 and 1 for L1
  - L1 data is estimated based on the size of the data
  - Detailed notes on requirements captured from zkSync Era and Metis captured in issue: ethereum-oasis-op#48 (comment)
Meeting ended at 8:00am PT

Meeting Wed, 12 July 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Tas Dienes (EF), Jose Franco (Offchain Labs), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs)

Agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review Open PRs (continue with PR #43 review on the Transaction Fee draft -- Testability Statement review R20 onwards)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Notes:

Andreas is resolving technical issues with format of EIP submission
Continuing review of transaction fee spec draft PR#43 testability statements - read by Andreas
- R20
  - Test step 4 should read “less than the submitted process”
  - Test step 6 should read “... the displayed Transaction fee… ”
- R21
  - Test step 2 - Nikolia will think about improved wording
  - Test step 8 should read “... view the displayed…”
  - In all test steps, “transaction originator” should be replaced by “third party”
- R22 - no issues
- R23 - no issues
- R24 - no issues
- R25 - no issues
- D1 - should read “If an L2 Meta Transaction…”
- D2 - no issues
- R26 - no issues
Once updated and reviewed again, Andreas will create an EIP
WG will skip the next 3 meetings due to summer vacation/travel. Next meeting is Sep 6.
After summer break, the WG will work on the L2 data fee spec

Meeting Wed, 28 June 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Anais Ofranc (EEA), Dan Shaw (EF), Andreas Freund (EF)

Canceled due to lack of attendance.

Meeting Wed, 14 June 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Kelvin Fichter (OP Labs), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Dan Shaw (EF)

Agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review Open PRs (continue with PR #43 review on the Transaction Fee draft -- Testability Statement review)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Scribe: Nikolai

Notes:

Starting at 7:12 am PT after Kelvin explained latest Optimism release.
Welcome of participants and explanation of rules
Selection of scribe (Nikolai)
No new participant introductions
Continue review of Testability Statements in PR #43 Transaction Fee Spec
- Andreas started with reviewing the previous points of discussions
- Andreas reads the R6 and testability - no objections
- Andreas reads the R7 and testability - no objections
- Andreas reads the R8 and testability - The recorded transaction fee should be submitted by Transaction Sender, not user.
- Andreas reads the R9 and testability - no objections
- Andreas reads the R10 and testability - Discussion about the testing environment - decided to remove the test word from the line of “An L2 system is up and running”
- Andreas reads the R11 and testability - remove ‘during 24hours’
- Andreas reads the R12 and testability - no objections
- Andreas reads the R13 and testability - no objections
- Andreas reads the R14 and testability - fix the last paragraph with “them”
- Andreas reads the R15 and testability - the same as R14
- Andreas reads the R16 and testability - same as R14
- Andreas reads the R17 and testability - no objections
- Andreas reads the R18 and testability - test steps - step 3 - should be fixed
- Andreas reads the R19 and testability - same as R14
The meeting ends

Meeting Wed, 31 May 2023, 7:00 am PT

Canceled due to lack of attendance.

Meeting Wed, 17 May 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Rami Husani (Metis), Kelvin Fichter (OP Labs), Anais Ofranc (EEA)

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review Open PRs (focus on new PR #43 on the Transaction Fee draft)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Notes: Starting at 7:05 am PT

Kelvin F: asks a question in regard to fees: “ Which portion of the fee is meant to account for the calldata?”
Andreas: We could extend the definition, including any applicable L2 data fees.
Kelvin F: How will the execution fee be charged? There should be a dedicated process for this.
Andreas: How will the data be charged on the side of Originator?
Kelvin F: Arbitrum uses gas to subtract from your account for that. It adds additional gas. “I would recommend starting working on new standards for L2 transaction type – where there is a new field of max data fee”. *Andreas: EVM transaction type extension for Layer 2?
Kelvin F: yes

Some googling and discussion on EVM fees standards between Andreas and Kelvin F

Review open PRs:

PR #43 - Review of the L2 transaction fees specification Testability Statements (Requirements review completed during last meeting) submitted by Andreas.

R1: No comments;
R2: No comments;
O1: No comments;
R3: No comments;
R4: No comments;
R5: No comments;
R6: Andreas found a small typo;

The meeting ended at 8:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 03 May 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Tas Dienes(EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Chris Cordle (Offchain Labs), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Rami Husani (Metis), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Jose Franco (Offchain Labs), Masha Moosavi (Offchain Labs), Kartheek Solipuram (EY)

Scribe: Anais Ofranc

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review Open PRs (focus on new PR #43 on the Transaction Fee draft)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Notes:

Welcome New Members

Masha Moosavi (Offchain Labs)
Jose Franco (Offchain Labs)

Review Open PRs

PR #43 Review of the L2 transaction fees specification submitted by Andreas:
- The PGB has discussed the scope of testability requirements. It was agreed that a logical test should be sufficient for testability requirements (implementers have to write a test to be able to test the requirement).
- Review of section “3.2 Layer 2 Transaction Fee Visibility Requirements”
  - Update [R21] to align with [R20] change “Transaction Originator” to 3rd Parties
  - [R22] Testability needs another left bracket.
- Review of section “3.3 Transaction Fee Requirements for Layer 2 Transactions”
  - [R25] Change “why a L2 transactions” to “why a L2 transaction”.
  - [D1] Agreement that this requirement should be updated to “If one or more L2 Meta Transactions are reverted before they are finalized on the L2's Layer 1 and the Transaction Originator has been charged, the Transaction Fees in the affected Meta Transactions SHOULD be refunded to the Transaction Originator by the Intermediary.”.
- Review of section “4 Conformance”.
  - [D2] change the font - this is too big.

Questions:

Anais: What is the next step? Andreas: We need to review the testability requirements
Nikolai: Where would that specification be published? Maybe it should be published on Wikipedia maybe? Andreas explained that it will be published on this github and as an Oasis Standard. Also, this will be published as an EIP. It will always be publicized on Ethereum Magicians. Also, L2Beat agreed to review the glossary.
Nikolai: Are we going to work on standardization of what constitutes a L2? Metis was not considered a L2 last year but this year, Metis is considered L2. So can we have a committee to discuss this ? Andreas: It would be useful to have a clear and agreed upon definition of what a L2 is. Ethereum.org relies on the definition of L2Beat.

Meeting Wed, 19 April 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Chris Cordle (Offchain Labs), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Rami Husani (Metis), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Jonathan Knegtel (), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Kartheek Solipuram (EY)

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review Open PRs (focus on new PR #43 on the Transaction Fee draft)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Notes: Welcome New Members

Chris Cordle new to Offchain Labs
Jonathan Knegtel, previously founder of BlockData, interested in helping develop standards for L2s Review Open PRs
PR #43 - First draft of L2 transaction fees specification submitted by Andreas.
- Review of abstract the L2 transaction draft specification.
- Review of definitions in the Glossary
  - TODO: bridges fix “between between”
  - TODO: Layer 2 fix “that” needs to be “than”
  - TODO: Layer 2 Operator add “network” to “node”
  - Omar suggested that the definition should to exclude RPC providers
  - Daniel suggested that there are other definitions that could be added to clarify this term, specifically access providers
  - TODO: Sequencer add “Layer 2” to “block”
  - Nikolia has a follow-up on Transaction Fee Refund Review of Concepts and Design
- Review of 3.1 Layer 2 Transaction Fee Transparency
  - TODO: Improve the last sentence of R7. Nikolai volunteered to look into it.
  - TODO: R8 fix “not” to “note
  - Finished review of 3.1
  - Nikolai asked if there is an opportunity to add additional definitions specified by other L2s. Recommended that they be proposed.
Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 5 April 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Rami Husani (Metis), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Kartheek Solipuram (EY)

Scribe: Anais Ofranc

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review Open PRs (focus on new PR #43 on the 5. Transaction Fee draft)
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Notes: Review Open PRs

PR #43 - First draft of L2 transaction fees specification submitted by Andreas.
- Review of abstract the L2 transaction draft specification.
- Review of newly added definitions in the Glossary
- Discussion of what to include in the Layer 2 Block definition - Nikolai explained that Polygon zkEVM seems to include more than transactions and state. Nikolai shared more information. Definition to be updated.
- Review of Concepts & Design section
- Review of L2 Transaction Fee Specification section/requirements
- Rami suggested modifying [R6] - The requirement refers to“Current state” but current state indicates “account state”, maybe it is better to use “Operating State” and define what this means.
- [R6] will be updated to take the feedback into account.
Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 22 March 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Tom Ngo (Metis), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Rami Husani (Metis), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Kartheek Solipuram (EY)

Scribe: Anais Ofranc

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review Open PRs
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Notes:

Introduction of new participants: Rami Husani
Andreas has informed the WG that the Weekly WG updates were sent to EF
Andreas has confirmed that the two EIPs now available on the Ethereum repo
- Initial submission of L2 Token List Draft #6734
- Initial Submission of Draft of EVM-based L2 address aliasing specification #6735
Open PR#34 - Draft of definition for Layer 2 Transactions fees.
- Review of the amended definitions
- Decision: The group agrees to merge the PR.
Issue #23 - Define standard L2 transaction Fee Structure
- Andreas updated the issue based on the decision for PR #34.
- The group identified and discussed the types of requirements needed for the specification
- The group agreed on out-of-scope items.
ACTION FOR NEXT MEETING: Understand what happens with paid fees for chain reorgs
Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 08 March 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Tas Dienes (EF), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Tom Ngo (Metis), Nikolai Prokhorenko (Metis), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs)

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Proposed agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Discussion on the next major workitem for the WG after the transaction fee definitions
Review Open PRs
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Meeting Notes:

Welcome Tom Ngo and Nikolai Prokhorenko from Metis
Last meeting was canceled due to everyone being out for ETHDenver
Review of published Blog/Report on L2 Bridges
Andreas opened discussion for the next work item to see if participants are ready to begin #23 “Define standard L2 Transaction Fee Structure”
- Anais suggested we better define who are the actors expected to implement the fee
- Andreas asked if we should add bridges to proposal
- Nikolai proposed that the fee structures of bridges are too diverse to be included
- The group decided to invite bridges to the discussion, but to limit the scope of effort to just layer 2 fees for now
Reviewed open PRs
- 34 Initial Draft of definitions for Layer 2 Transaction Fees
  - Daniel and Tas discussed fee naming consistency

Meeting Wed, 22 Feb 2023, 7:00 am PT

Canceled due to lack of attendance because of Eth Denver travel.

Meeting Wed, 08 Feb 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), T, Anais Ofranc (EEA), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Omar Azhar, Shawn Rogers

Scribe: Anais Ofranc

Proposed Agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Announcement of the WG Co-Chairs Election results
Review Open PRs
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Announcement of the WG Co-Chairs Election results

Andreas informed: Andreas Freund and Dan Shaw re-elected as co-chairs for one year until 31 January 2024.

Review Open PRs

PR #35: Andreas reminded that in the last meeting, the group decided that Chain ID is beyond the scope of the Canonical Token List Standard
- Decision: Decision to merge the draft PR for it to be submitted to the PGB as a work item to be approved.
PR#29: EVM based address aliasing specification
- Andreas provided an overview of the current status. The next step is to complete the draft and then submit it to the board for approval. Then it will be submitted as an EIP late February/beginning of March.
- Decision: Decision to merge the draft PR for it to be submitted to the PGB as a work item to be approved.
PR #34 L2 Transaction Fees
- Omar Azhar had to leave earlier and apologized. He will review the L2 fees page and provide feedback as needed
- Andreas provides an overview of the definitions of the different fees.
- Kelvin: Execution fee definition is specific to Arbitrum. In Optimism, the divisor does not exist/is not used. The suggestion is to limit the definition to “a fee sufficient to cover both L1 and L2 transaction fees” and not to provide a specific calculation. Instead, we could indicate that there are different ways to calculate that fee.
- Andreas: Sidechain definition to be updated. Current definition is incomplete.
- No objections on the definitions of the other types of fees and other terms in the specification.
- Kevin: Transaction fee is paid by the transaction originator but not necessarily paid to the L2 sequencer. Suggestion to remove the “to a Layer 2 sequencer” from the definition.
- Andreas: Working Group Standards Glossary of Terms has been created.
- Dan: Provided overview of the meeting with L2beats. This is an initial engagement. Next step is to review bridge reports and glossary of terms.

New Agenda Item: Review State of L2 Bridged Report

Andreas: The State of L2 Bridges has been reviewed by Dan Goldman. Link to document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U0XIs47TLmQtFZKVSdRI9UsQEg9QyJHnqlDRd-ZCyqA/edit?usp=sharing
Andreas provides an overview of the report.
Kelvin: L2 to L2 Landscape is more interesting because it is not well-understood. His company is doing an event in Mexico.
Andreas: Request Kelvin to review report. Would like to publish this month.

No further business

Meeting adjourned.

Meeting Wed, 25 Jan 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Tas Dienes (EF), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Weijia Zhang (Wanchain, EEA Crosschain Interop Group), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures), Molly Beach (Accenture)

Regrets: Cody Burns (Accenture), Ramon Canales (Matter Labs), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Parth Bhatt, Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network), Souradeep (Boba Network), Violet (Boba Network), Hanan Beer (EF), Yoav Weiss (EF), Jose Fabrega (Metis), Gabriel Barros (Cartesi), Shawn Rogers (Accenture), Kartheek Solipuram (E&Y),

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
EEA Cross-chain Interop WG meeting update to L2 WG
Review 2nd Blog/Report on L2 Bridges
Review Open PRs
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

The meeting was recorded: https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/gW1ldfh2ocIgLs05hHogddoXR-sGZyNiTGsyT9MvO23eoGSZmZ5DhrsyRzCv50sH.41OT6e8b7xqHnK11 Passcode: %508Y+#Y
Weijia, Omar, and Daniel introduced themselves
Weija provided an update on the EEA Crosschain Interop Working Group
- https://entethalliance.github.io/crosschain-interoperability/
- Relayer function spec in review
- Crosschain discovery mechanism spec and function call spec in progress
- Some of the WG’s specs are being brought into IETF
The draft article on L2 bridges was discussed
- Weija asked about zk vs optimistic bridges' pros and cons
Andreas and Dan’s terms as co-chairs end at the end of the month. They have been nominated for a new term. Other nominations are welcome. An election will be started asap.
Review Open PRs
- #35 Canonical token list standard - currently in draft release. Progressing for draft status. A discussion about testability is ongoing with Chaals. Chain ID uniqueness per EIP-155 is the main topic yet to be resolved. Nobody in the meeting expressed concern about the lack of a uniqueness requirement in EIP-155.

Meeting Wed, 11 Jan 2023, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Tas Dienes (EF), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Shawn Rogers (Accenture), Kartheek Solipuram (E&Y),

Regrets: Cody Burns (Accenture), Ramon Canales (Matter Labs), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Weija Zhang (Wanchain, EEA Crosschain Interop Group), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Parth Bhatt, Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Souradeep (Boba Network), Violet (Boba Network), Hanan Beer (EF), Yoav Weiss (EF), Jose Fabrega (Metis), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures), Gabriel Barros (Cartesi), Scribe: Dan Shaw

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Report out from Meeting with EEA Cross-chain Interop WG meeting on 11/9
Review Open PRs
Review Open Issues
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

Weija Zhang of the EEA Cross-chain Interop WG is now confirmed for 1/25
Review of the Initial Draft of definitions for Layer 2 Transaction Fees #34
- Daniel G. proposed that we adjust our definition of Sidechain and use this definition consistently throughout.
Daniel G. will be added as a reviewer to 1st draft of EVM based address aliasing specification #29
All new active contributors are invited to sign the iCLA - https://github.com/eea-oasis/L2/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
Andreas is working with the EEA Community Projects project governing board (PGB) to establish a definition of “testability”.
Welcome Shawn Rogers from Accenture
Andreas will kick off an Eth Magicians post and get the EIP process started for the Draft L2 WG: Token List Specifications.
Andreas asked everyone to review “The Current State of Layer 2 Bridges” mini-report. This mini-report will be published on the EEA Community Projects blog by the end of January.

Meeting Wed, 30 Novt 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Cody Burns (Accenture), Kartheek Solipuram (E&Y)

Regrets: Ramon Canales (Matter Labs), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Weija Zhang (Wanchain, EEA Crosschain Interop Group), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Parth Bhatt, Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Souradeep (Boba Network), Violet (Boba Network), Hanan Beer (EF), Yoav Weiss (EF), Jose Fabrega (Metis), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures), Dan Shaw (EF), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Tas Dienes (EF), Gabriel Barros (Cartesi)

Scribe: Andreas Freund

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
EEA Crosschain Interoperability WG Presentation on the current status of their efforts on crosschain addressing
Review PR: #29 -- EVM-based Address Aliasing, and updates made based on last WG meeting and other feedback
Review Open Issues List
Select the next work item
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

Kartheek Solipuram (E&Y) joined for the first time
After Welcomes, Andreas Freund was selected as scribe Katheek introduced himself to the group and his interest and work in Layer 2 and Layer 2 bridges as E&Y solution architect
EEA Crosschain Interoperability WG did not present as scheduled. Will move presentation to the next meeting on 12/14
PR#29 – EVM-based Address Aliasing
- Andreas: Presented an overview of PR #29 with a focus on the added security considerations
- Dan: Agreed with proposed language
- Cody: Asked clarifying questions, in particular on checksum for relativeAddress. Will add comment.
- Kartheek: Asked clarifying questions on relativAddress structure and security considerations.
Open Issues Review
- On L2 Interfaces: Karhteek to add some comments based on what he is working on with L2 bridges
- On L2 Trxn Fees:
  - Dan and Andreas discussed possible substructures of the priority fee around MEV.
  - Also discussed trxn ordering in a decentralized sequencer network and how that can be achieved with PoS consensus. Andreas mentioned EigenLayer as a staking mechanism to add L1 protection to L2 sequencer consensus.
  - Andreas will create PR with draft of definition before next WG meeting
Other Business
- Andeas updated on submission of Canonical Token List spec to PGB and next steps

Meeting Wed, 16 Novt 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Tas Dienes (EF), Gabriel Barros (Cartesi)

Regrets: Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Ramon Canales (Matter Labs), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Weija Zhang (Wanchain, EEA Crosschain Interop Group), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Parth Bhatt (MOBI), Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Cody Burns (Accenture), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Souradeep (Boba Network), Violet (Boba Network), Hanan Beer (EF), Yoav Weiss (EF), Jose Fabrega (Metis), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures),

Scribe: Gabriel Barros

Proposed Agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Report out from Meeting with EEA Cross-chain Interop WG meeting on 11/9
Review PR: #29 -- EVM-based Address Aliasing, and updates made based on last WG meeting and other feedback
Review Open Issues List
Select the next work item
Open Forum for other items

Meeting Notes:

No new participants.
Merged PR #26 - Canonical Token List Spec Draft : Will be submit for approval by PGB
Review PR #29 - EVM-based Address Aliasing
- Andreas provided an overview from last meeting discussions
- Gabriel asked clarifying question about 8bytes size limit and human readable chainIDs
- We need clarification on "no-code at the address for bridged assets" security concern
- Presentation on the agenda for the next meeting (issue #31 – Crosschain WG x L2 Group)
Review of open issues
- Call out for interested parties on issue #21
- Closing issue #20 as dup of #21
- Gabriel to add Cartesi model as comment to issue #23 - Fee structure
Next work item
- Andreas shared "The State of L2 Bridges" wip document
Discussion on the dates of the last meetings of the year and return on 11th of Jan of next year. No meeting Dec 28.
Anais brought up the topic of reaching out to other interested groups (such as EVM compatible L1 chains) for the standards created here.

Meeting Wed, 2 Novt 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Anais Ofranc (EEA), Tas Dienes (EF), Ramon Canales (Matter Labs), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism),

Regrets: Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Weija Zhang (Wanchain, EEA Crosschain Interop Group), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Parth Bhatt, Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Cody Burns (Accenture), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Souradeep (Boba Network), Violet (Boba Network), Hanan Beer (EF), Yoav Weiss (EF), Jose Fabrega (Metis), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures), Gabriel Barros (Cartesi)

Scribe: Anais Ofranc

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review PRs:

#26 -- Canonical Token List Spec Draft (merge after meeting hopefully)
#29 -- EVM-based Address Aliasing

Review Open Issues List
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

New Participants
- Ramon Canales (Matter Labs), recently joined the ZK Sync team.
Review PRs: #26 -- Canonical Token List Spec Draft
- Andreas provided a review of the draft and its purpose
- All participants agreed it is ready to merge
Review PRs: #29 -- EVM-based Address Aliasing
- Andreas provided an overview of the specification and its purpose
- Ramon asked clarifying questions
- Kelvin noted tha 8 bytes for encoding should be enough
- Kelvin suggested that it needs a security section to ensure that addresses for bridged assets are validated to have no code in order to avoid malicious behavior
- Kelvin agreed to add suggestions on wording for 8 byte limitation and a security section by the next meeting
Review of open issues
- Confirmed L2 report out date for EEA Crosschain WG of 11/9 with Anais
- Participants agreed that providing a definition of transaction fee terms and general structure would be a good next work item
- Kelvin agreed to add Optimisim fee structure, definitions and calculations to the fee issue
- WG briefly discussed remaining open items with agreement that additional low-hanging-fruit interoperability work items should be a focus in 2023
Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 19 Oct 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Gabriel Barros (Cartesi), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Anais Ofranc (EEA)

Regrets: Tas Dienes (EF), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Weija Zhang (Wanchain, EEA Crosschain Interop Group), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Parth Bhatt, Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Cody Burns (Accenture), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Souradeep (Boba Network), Violet (Boba Network), Hanan Beer (EF), Yoav Weiss (EF), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Jose Fabrega (Metis), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures),

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review PRs: #26 -- Canonical Token List Spec Draft (merge after meeting hopefully) & #29 -- EVM-based Address Aliasing Review Open Issues List
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

Review PR #29 (address aliasing)
- Discussed whether we should start this standardization effort with an EIP to get
- All EVM-based chains MUST have a chain id to prevent replay attack
- It was identified that the current max character length for chain IDs is 13, so we need to increase to at least 16 characters
- Anais noted EIP 3220 https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-3220, noting that it would be good to align where we land with the EEA Crosschain Working Groups efforts
- Decision was made to start with an EIP for Chain IDs
- Next steps
  - Finalize PR approval
  - Then need at least 2 implementations OASIS Standardization
  - Anais invited the L2 WG to come join the Crosschain WG and the Crosschain WG to the L2 WG
  - Andreas will represent the group at the Crosschain WG
Issue #23 (transaction fee structure) was reviewed
- Daniel will add how Arbitrum handles this

Meeting Wed, 5 Oct 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF/TreeTrunk), Tas Dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Gabriel Barros (Cartesi), Jose Fabrega (Metis), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures), Anais Ofranc

Regrets: Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Weija Zhang (Wanchain, EEA Crosschain Interop Group), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Parth Bhatt, Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Cody Burns (Accenture), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Souradeep (Boba Network), Violet (Boba Network), Hanan Beer (EF), Yoav Weiss (EF), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism),

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review PRs:
- #26 -- Canonical Token List Spec Draft
- #29 -- EVM-based Address Aliasing
Review Open Issues List
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

Review PR #26 (token list)
- It’s at the point of final review, ready to merge if no more comments.
- Andreas explained the proposed standard
- Q: where will token lists be hosted? A: each project will have and host its own. It’s not centralized.
- Need 2 more approvals
Review PR #29 (address aliasing)
- Andreas explained the proposed standard
- Gabriel pointed out the need for an address order requirement. Andreas said he would add it.
Issue #23 (transaction fee structure) was reviewed
Issue #20 (cross chain interop interface) was reviewed
- Anais mentioned work that the EEA cross chain interop group is working on https://entethalliance.github.io/crosschain-interoperability/draft_crosschain_techspec_messaging.html

Meeting Wed, 21 Sep 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Hanan Beer (EF), Tas Dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Andreas Freund (EF/TreeTrunk), Yoav Weiss (EF), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures),

Regrets: Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Weija Zhang (Wanchain, EEA Crosschain Interop Group), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Parth Bhatt, Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Cody Burns (Accenture), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Souradeep (Boba Network), Violet (Boba Network)

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of the WG meeting rules
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review PRs: #26 -- Canonical Token List Spec Draft & #29 -- EVM-based Address Aliasing
Review Open Issues List
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

PR #26 Canonical Token List Spec Draft
- Andreas presented an overview of the document
- Tas will reach out to Offchain Labs for their input***
PR #29 EVM-based Address Aliasing
- Andreas and Kelvin discussed the spec
- In an execution context, you can’t tell if an address is an alias
- Disallow chainId 0, limit max chainId value
- Kelvin and Andreas will add details to the PR
Issue #21 L2 Transaction Interface was discussed
- Hanan mentioned the problem of bridging tokens to another chain and not having gas on that chain. Yoav said that account abstraction ERC-4337 should help solve that. There is a potential spec to be developed around this.
Issue #23 L2 Tx Fee Structure was discussed by Andreas and Yoav
Andreas will send an email poll about whether to change the October meeting schedule due to Devcon.

Meeting Wed, 7 September 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF), Tas Dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Sourdeep Das (Boba Network), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures),

Regrets: Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Parth Bhatt, Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Cody Burns (Accenture), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Violet (Boba Network)

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review PR #26 -- Canonical Token List Spec Draft ethereum-oasis-op#26
Review Open Issues List
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

A propoal was made to ensure that the Token List Standard Proposal remain a strict superset of the tokenlist specification
Looking for approvals on PR #26 from Cody Burns, Kelvin Fichter, and Kyle Thomas, then we'll do one final round of review and send it off to the PGB for approval
Closing Issue #6 as completed
Closing Issue #17 as completed
Reviewed Issue #24
Daniel Goldman proposed integrating address aliasing
Reviewed Issue #20
It was proposed that we add a definition of finality and then categorize by L2

Meeting Wed, 24 August 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF/TreeTrunk), Tas Dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Daniel Goldman (Offchain Labs), Weija Zhang (Wanchain, EEA Crosschain Interop Group), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures),

Regrets: Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Parth Bhatt, Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Cody Burns (Accenture), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Souradeep (Boba Network), Violet (Boba Network)

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review PR #26 -- Canonical Token List Spec Draft ethereum-oasis-op#26
Review Open Issues List
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

Weija Zhang says the crosschain interoperability group previously did some work on token lists and has some interest in the topic.
- https://medium.com/wanchain-foundation/understanding-wanchain-two-way-bridge-and-direct-bridge-7f6088617734
- Human readable naming convention: [provider]TOKENSYMBOL@chainname *
- E.g. wanETH@wanchain or ethWAN@ethereum, ETH@ethereum
- It’s a bit long
Andreas says apps can look up tokenSymbol by tokenId. tokenId may not be human readable.
Weija: can we recommend a naming convention for UX display of crosschain token symbols?
Daniel: make it an optional field in the token list?
Tas: Do we need a separate chainList? Andreas: maybe
Weija will propose a change request to add a human readable token symbol to the tokenList
Andreas: add granularity into description of decimals property
chainURI could be a DID. Andreas to add explanatory text.
Andreas will add RFC numbers to URI properties, and EIPs where appropriate
Daniel suggested the need for a separate list for bridges

Meeting Wed, 10 August 2022, 7:00 am PT

Canceled since both Chair were absent but excused.

Meeting Wed, 27 July 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Tas Dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Souradeep (Boba Network), Violet (Boba Network)

Regrets: Andreas Freund (EF/TreeTrunk), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures), Parth Bhatt, Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Cody Burns (Accenture), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network)

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Review the new Token List Spec Draft PR ethereum-oasis-op#26
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes:

Andreas was out; Dan Shaw ran the meeting
TokenList draft spec discussion
- Omar and Souradeep have looked at it; reviewing further
- It was posted to ethresear.ch
- Micah Zoltu commented that https://tokenlists.org/ already exists, run by Uniswap
- ACTION: Ask Kelvin why Optimism isn’t using that
- ACTION: Tas to contact Optimism and Arbitrum and Metis to review the PR
Omar asked about Issue #6 and GPACT. Dan pointed him to the EEA Crosschain WG github repo.

Meeting Wed, 13 July 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF/TreeTrunk), Tas Dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Omar Azhar (Matter Labs), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures), Parth Bhatt

Regrets: Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), , Cody Burns (Accenture), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Souradeep (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network)

Scribe: Pavel Sinelnikov

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rule
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Continue the discussion on the Token List work item with a focus on reaching an agreement on an updated schema.& discuss proposed governance process
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

Discussion of Issue #22 - ethereum-oasis-op#22

No objections to ethereum-oasis-op#22 (comment)
- Intention is to eventually move it to IPFS
Getting more complex than what the initial vision was
- Can make things optional, what is REQUIRED and OPTIONAL
Next steps is to write a standards document with what oasis recommends
Try to bring in Arbitrum, Loopring, Aztec, Starkware, and Polygon to review the issue
- Arbitrum - Tas
- Starkware, Loopring, and Aztec, and Polygon (mailing list) - Andreas
Following standardization process outlined by ethereum-oasis-op/baseline-standard#72
People might not be familiar with the spec standards, joining the meeting would be the best way to communicate
Should a deadline be set on commenting? - no rush

Meeting Wed, 29 June 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF/TreeTrunk), Tas Dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Ino Murko (Boba Network), Souradeep (Boba Network), Alan Chiu (Boba Network)

Regrets: Elena Sinelnikova (Metis), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Cody Burns (Accenture)

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Continue the discussion on the Token List work item with a focus on reaching an agreement on an updated schema.
Decide on a date for the AnyTrust presentation by Arbitrum and, subsequently, Metis. PROPOSAL: Utilize our off weeks for projects to present their current project to the WG including the EEA Crosschain Interop WG
Open Forum for other items

Meeting notes

Alan, Ino, and Souradeep from Boba Network introduced themselves
Discussion of Issue #22 - Token list standard ethereum-oasis-op#22
Kelvin restated the problem
Andreas said he added a new token list format proposal which incorporates input from previous comments
Each chain will maintain their own TokenList, because maintaining one global TokenList is a governance headache.
Andreas and Kelvin discussed the proposed format and made some changes
Andreas will add some additional ideas (including TokenId) to the proposal after this meeting
Tas to work on choosing a date for AnyTrust presentation - favor off weeks from this WG meeting. Andreas made a proposal to offer off weeks for L2 education sessions; approved with no objections.

Meeting Wed, 15 June 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF/TreeTrunk), Tas Dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Anav Agrawal (Polygon), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Cody Burns (Accenture)

Regrets: Elena Sinelnikova (Metis)

Scribe: Pavel Sinelnikov

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Selection of scribe Introduction of new participants
Status of Arbitrum/Metis presentation on Validium-type Optimistic Rollups -- Tas
First focused discussion and distribution of work items on the most commented issues -- Transaction Fees, Transaction Interfaces, Transaction Interop Interfaces or Token List
Open Forum for other items

Notes for the meeting

Problem of standardized token lists - here are the tokens and routes

Token names and symbols should not be used as identifiers
Governance headaches when implementing a single token list
Canonical Token List + Bridge Token List
No bridge is currently working on this
Need to contact all existing L2s and other chains that are based on Ethereum - just standardizing it under all L2s would give reasons for other chains to adopt the standard tokenId in a dedicated namespace, similar to a DID
- DID registry as long as it is compliant with the interface and node for governance - registry does not need to be in a single location
  - Pull in PR
  - Reviewers that review to be compliant with the spec
  - If using an existing namespace, it would not be allowed (e.g. did.microsoft)
  - How namespace conflicts are handled is still under discussion
  - Can have duplicate methods, choice of registry matters
  - Write a test suite to test compliance to make sure that there are no duplicates, essentially governance with more automation
- PR is merged

Discussion on the creation of a Oracle Aggregation standard - likely more fitting for a different standardization platform

ethereum-oasis-op#21 - Testnet creation on the EIP-4844 standard. Need nodes to see if there is support

Testnet will be created likely within a few months
Creating a new issue or discussion on the standard

Meeting Wed, 1 June 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF/TreeTrunk), Tas Dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Syed Shamayel (Accenture), Niraj Gadgilwar (Accenture), Yuan “Peter” Su (Metis), Samrat Kishor, Cody Burns (Accenture), Sushil Saha (Accenture)

Regrets: Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Will Harborne (Deversifi), Konrad (Deversifi), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Kyle Thomas (Provide),

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Discuss the list and contact of new issues and organize workgroups around some or all of them
Discuss potential timing and logistics for a presentation by Arbitrum folks on AnyTrust.
Open Forum for other items

Notes the meeting

If you want to be on the WG’s email list, send an email to general-l2-scalability+subscribe@lists.oasis-open-projects.org
Blog post on cross chain asset migration is in the pipeline, almost ready to publish
Discussion of issues https://github.com/eea-oasis/L2/issues
- Yuan will add some comments and details on #20. It could be split up into multiple parallel topics.
- #21 is for an RPC API
- #22 was suggested by Optimism
- #23 (transaction fee structure) has been raised by Optimism and Arbitrum. Metis interested too.
- #24 was brought up by Will Harborne and Andreas Freund. Cody suggested using soulbound tokens. Andreas discussed using DIDs. One DID can connect to multiple keys with multiple algos. Yuan expressed interest in working on it.
Discussing a presentation about AnyTrust. Metis also has an L2 that keeps data off of L1 in the happy case; only a Tx hash is written to L1 when cooperating. Tas to propose some dates/time.

Meeting Wed, 18 May 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund (EF/TreeTrunk), Tas Dienes (EF), Dan Shaw (EF), Pavel Sinelnikov (Metis), Will Harborne (Deversifi), Konrad (Deversifi), Kelvin Fichter (Optimism), Kyle Thomas (Provide)

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Discuss the list of new work items Tas brought back from Devconnect, plus any other items members want to bring up, decide to focus on 1 - 2 items with the greatest interest and open issues for them.
Open Forum for other items

Notes from the meeting:

Welcome new members:

Kelvin from Optimism - long time L2
Conrad, CTO Deversifi - running StarkEx
Pavel, Integration Lead at Metis
Will, Deversifi - Started on Starkware StarkEx, but now exploring multiple Layer 2s

New Work Items discussed in-person at DevConnect

Big thank you to Layer Two Amsterdam
Will expressed the need for something like IBC which allow roll-ups standard interfaces for ZK
Mass migration strategies
Tas suggested balancing ambitious projects like standardized interfaces with easier wins like token list
Token list
Pavel: Looking at EIP 4844 standard for optimistic roll-ups at Layer 2
Clarifying question: Do Roll-ups need a modification of EIP 4844?
Kyle +1 for interface. Maybe strawman for what the interface would look like. +1 for EIP 4844
Conrad cross L2 state changes. Something better than trust notifications.
Kelvin standard properly pricing transactions. The fee model, transaction structure, does not work across execution and call data at Layer 2. Standardize transaction format at Layer. Pay this much for execution and that much for call data. Related to EIP 4844.
Will asked Is the standard focused on developer experience or is there some other reason for this.
Kelvin responded that this would improve developer experience, reduce protocol complexity and overhead, and give a more consistent end user experience.
Andreas proposes account experience and wallet considerations at Layer 2. User hub to manage keys and create a portable identity. A generalized account model to provide a better user experience across L2s.
Will +1 on wallet proposal

Topic: who else should we be reaching out to to work on the projects that were discussed?

Aztec
Starkware
hermez / Jordi
Other Polygon folks working on roll-ups

Proposals in review
1. Define L2 Interop Interface standards - engage crosschain working group
2. Transaction fee - new ethereum transaction type with execution on Layer 2 and what data needs to be published to Layer 1
3. Token list - mapping contract addresses to the 3-4 character representations. Need chain ID, an address and a code. Simple. No protocol changes. Quick win for standardization.
- Noted that Multiple representations of the same thing push complexity up significantly
- Andreas points out that this is like a CUSIP in traditional finance
1. Standard wallet account representation that work across L2s
Delegation of tasks

Andreas will take the Wallet issue
Will will take the Interop Interface issue
Kelvin will take on transaction standard
Kelvin will ask Ben at Optimism to create the issue for token list

Andreas shared some background context around the Crosschain Interop WG and GPACT
Reminder to all new members to add themselves to project Contributor List: https://github.com/eea-oasis/L2/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md

Meeting Wed, 4 May 2022, 7:00 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund, Tas Dienes, Dan Shaw, David Katz, Samrat Kishor

Scribe: Samrat Kishor

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Report on L2 relevant subjects and feedback on L2 WG launch from Devconnect -- Tas
Review of A DeFi Conundrum: L2s are awesome but they still suck for real financial assets" (here) and discussion on content and where to publish
Discuss next steps on collaboration with EEA Cross-Chain Interop WG (see new issue on EEA WG Testing Run at the end of Q2 and call for participants)
Open Forum for other items

Notes from the meeting:

Tas: Updates from L2 event at DevConnect Amsterdam:

The L2 working group announced at DevConnect.
Most of the major L2 platforms were present.
General sense in the conversations was that the time is right for talking about standards.
The group agreed on the fact that we need to follow up with them and explore ways to work together and hence find a way of working in asynchronous/synchronous ways. We could possibly use Slack.

Andreas appealed to the group to review the draft blog post on digital assets with residuals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RCq9XfH8daEQ_djabRIkXXn0LBYdiNBUV9NiH5lZdT4/edit?usp=sharing The group collectively needs to take a look. Comments have been addressed from EEA and post this round of feedback the article will be ready to publish.

Andreas suggested that we need to join forces and have joint communication with the Interop working group. We can explore working with Anais to see if our working group can coordinate on outbound communication.

Andreas suggested that we should reach out to the L2 platforms like Socket and let them know about this working group. We should plan L2<->L2 interop testing their tech.

The group discussed about the user experience for new members and it was concluded that Giithub and Slack is the best place to land new members for this woking group.

A conversation ensued between John W and Andreas F about various growth and outreach strategies for this working group.

Meeting Wed, 20 Apr 2022, 7:00 am PT

Postponed due to key participants attending DevConnect in Amsterdam.

Meeting Wed, 6 Apr 2022, 1:30 pm PT

Meeting Assets:

Presentation
Recording

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules. Selection of scribe: Brittany Mauck

Presentation by the EEA Interoperability WG on GPACT and digital assets with residuals with Q&A: Peter Robinson

Peter Robinson- I sent a link for participants to watch before this meeting. EEA L2 and Crosschain presentation was given.

Crosschain Protocol Stack. Three separate layers:

Crosschain Applications- Application code across blockchains.
Crosschain Function calls- Enables functions to be executed across blockchains.
Crosschain messaging: Enables events generated on one blockchain to be trusted on another blockchain.

GPACT gives atomicity, multichains, return values, conditional logic, application authentication, gives good developer experience. The General Purpose Atomic Crosschain Transaction (GPACT) protocol is a call tree commitment scheme that provides atomic crosschain function calls for an arbitrary function tree.

Sequence: Start- segment (getPrice)- segment (transfer)- segment (delivery)- segment (shipment)- root (executeTrade)- signaling (transfer)-signaling (delivery). Execution Process: Start, Segment, Root, Signaling will go into Crosschain control and check whether it trusts the information coming in. Once trusted, you will call out to business function for the entry point function you have previously committed to.

Andreas Freund- What happens when a contract state changes between commitment to the call tree and execution of the call tree that changes the function outcomes? would that not cause the execution tree failure?

Peter Robinson- Correct. You can have a situation where the function changes due to state changes and overall transaction will fail. Front running is a well understood issue in blockchain. With crosschain calling, you use the same mitigation for front running.

Chaals Nevile- Does the synchronicity have a stop rule, so you don't keep hanging forever?

Peter Robinson- You executed the segments in the leaf first, so you’ll hand in the segment from the function you are calling, and it has the return value so no waiting.

Crosschain Messaging Layer- Only act on Ethereum Events that were emitted by transactions that are in blocks that are final. Finality depends on the chain.

zkRollups with EVM Capability Presentation- Peter looking for feedback on below presentation.

zkRollup is run by the Operator. If the operator takes transactions and creates a batch, then have zero knowledge proof. Proof can prove you can go to old root hash to new root hash by verifying those transactions and anyone can verify. The user of the rollup will get a transaction receipt.

zkRollups Operators can be slashed if they:

Maliciously sing a transaction receipt and do not include a transaction in the batch.
Maliciously sign an incorrect transaction.

zkRollup Finality

Immediate? When the zkRollup Operator returns the signed transaction receipt?
Once batch proof submitted to blockchain?
Once blockchain transaction that batch proof was submitted in is final.

Optimistic Rollups- based on a full proof window. Typically, one week.

Crosschain Protocol Stack and Rollups

Like other blockchains, it comes down to how to prove on a target chain that an event was emitted on a source chain and defining “final” for a source chain.

Andreas Freund- Do we then not have the same issues as with bridges if an attacker poses as a validator with a correct signature?

Peter Robinson- If the attacker steals the zkRollup operator signature key, you are in trouble. If we are on Ethereum 2 for beacon chain and someone steals private keys, you are in trouble. It then comes down to operational security of the system. There are other ways of doing it to.

Andreas Freund- You are not accepting new blocks until a block has been verified. The user has the escape hash option where they can extract the last valid state of their holding without operator. So, operators can’t steal your funds. You can pull funds out if you don’t like the operator. Even if private key is compromised, you can’t steal funds.

Peter Robinson- Sounds good.

Andreas Freund- How do you ensure the issuer doesn’t know that the bond is on the rollup? Not online, just submits the payment. Peter Robinson- Per the diagram, the payer calls the contract and it’s up to the people writing the business logic at application level to do the right thing. It’s a matter of solidity contract to do business logic.

Andreas Freund- The bridge contract needs to understand the type of transactions that are happening and then reach out to the bond contract and update the relationship there. That current functionality doesn’t exist.

Weijia Zhang- Sequence can rearrange transaction which may impact the synchronization of crosschain, correct?

Andreas Freund- Once committed to the block, that is final. Anything can happen on the L2.

ADJOURNMENT

This meeting was adjourned on Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 5:30PM ET.

Attendance

Member Company	Name
Accenture	Cody Burns
Adhara Ltd	Coenie Beyers
Blockdaemon	Fode Toure
Clearmatics	Aiman Baharna
Ethereum Foundation	Andreas Freund
ConsenSys	Angela Potter
ConsenSys AG	Ermyas Abebe
ConsenSys AG	Lucas Saldanha
ConsenSys Software R&D	Peter Robinson
Datachain	Susumu Toriumi
EEA	Anais Ofranc
EEA	Brittany Mauck
EEA	Chaals Nevile
EEA	James Harsh
Ethereum Foundation	Dan Shaw
Ethereum Foundation	Tas Dienes
Wanchain	Weijia Zhang
Accenture	David Katz

Meeting Wed, 23 Mar 2022, 7 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund, Tas Dienes, Anais Ofranc, Dan Shaw, Kyle Thomas, David Katz, Cody Burns, Samrat Kishor, John Wolpert

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Selection of scribe
Introduction of new participants
Introduction and overview of GPACT protocol in preparation of April 6th meeting with Q&A / Discussion of applicability to L2 (Andreas)
Open Forum for other items

Notes

No new members today
Numerous views but no comments so far on the Eth Magicians& ethresear.ch posts
Blog post on the problem of paying residuals for assets that have moved across chains is in progress. Andreas et al will be meeting with EEA marketing to discuss publicizing it.
Anais mentioned this article https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/outlining-a-standard-interface-for-cross-domain-erc20-transfers/6151. She offered to contact the contributors to see if they are interested in the above mentioned problem. ACTION: Anais to contact them once a draft of the blog post is ready to share with them.
Andreas presented on the GPACT protocol. Peter suggested it could solve the problem of paying residuals for assets that have moved across chains.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1KpsBI7lBI8WXk3xkcZ3_tucLmz5AUD12GH-e5q2pGac/edit?usp=sharing
1. It’s not clear yet how this could work in a privacy preserving system such as zk-zk-rollup
2. GPACT group is aiming for limited interop testing at the end of Q2 or early Q3 with a few EEA members
John Wolpert suggested promoting this WG harder to the L2 projects. Samrat will reach out to Polygon. Tas will contact Offchain Labs after the blog post can be shared.

Meeting Wed, 09 Mar 2022, 7 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund, Tas Dienes, Anais Ofranc, Dan Shaw, Samrat Kishor, Marco Cora

Scribe: Tas Dienes Proposed agenda Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules Selection of scribe Introduction of new participants Discuss collaboration between this WG and EEA Interop WG and next steps Discuss next steps after Eth Magician and Eth Research Posts on our Workitem 1 (Bridging Digital Assets with Residuals) here Open Forum for other items Notes Welcome to new members There was a discussion between EEA Interop WG (Peter, Weijah) and this WG (Andreas, Anais, Dan). EEA WGs cannot accept contributions from non-members. Trying to maximize sharing and collaboration across groups. Interop WG aims to start testing in Q2-Q3. Andreas is planning to meet and discuss further April 6. Andreas will provide an overview/review of the topic at the next meeting of this WG. The Eth Magician and Eth Research Posts on our work item about interop for digital assets with residuals is out: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/interop-of-digital-assets-with-residuals-l1-l1-l1-l2-l2-l2/8519 https://ethresear.ch/t/interop-of-digital-assets-with-residuals-l1-l1-l1-l2-l2-l2/12156 Andreas will promote on social media, others encouraged to publicize as well Andreas will contact EEA marketing about publicizing the topic and collaboration with Interop WG Andreas will contact Immutable about participating. Chair and vice-chair for this WG have been nominated, Chet sent out an email call for objections, which closes at the next meeting March 23.

Meeting Wed, 23 Feb 2022, 7 am PT

Attending: Tas Dienes, Anais Ofranc, Dan Shaw, Marco Cora, Chaals Neville, Samrat Kishor, Cody Burns

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Introduction of new participants
Selection of scribe
WG Governance
- Nominations for Chair/Vice-Chair have closed. Discussion of best voting method. PROSPAL: Use e-Ballot administered by OASIS.
- Nominations for Maintainer group see Reminder above
Discuss proposed Eth Magicians and Eth Research Posts on our Workitem 1 (Bridging Digital Assets with Residuals) here based on the posting by Peter Robinson (GPACT protocol) to this work item.
Open Forum for other items

Notes

Welcome to new members
Anais discussed the EEA Crosschain Interoperability WG. Documents will be made public in the next few weeks.
Vote for chairs is coming up; will be run as an e-ballot by OASIS. Reminder to new members to add themselves to the contributor list so they can vote.
Discuss proposed Eth Magicians and Eth Research Posts on our Workitem 1. Anais said that the EEA Crosschain Interop WG has already been working on a solution to this problem, and the work in development is expected to be made public in the next week or two. Some information and specs are also public already, including a proposed EIP to identify chains The group is anticipating reaching Interop Testing in Q2. Further discussion is needed. We will probably go forward with the post anyway, to raise awareness of the problem and solution(s), but after discussion with the Crosschain Interop WG.
Noting that many participants here are EEA members so can participate directly in the EEA work. In addition, this group is a good mechanism to provide feedback to EEA, given good IPR policies, an informed group of participants who can provide relevant feedback and assess whether the current proposals meet the needs of L2.
Meetings will switch to biweekly. Next is March 9. Andreas to send an updated invitation.

Meeting Wed, 16 Feb 2022, 7 am PT

Attending: Dan Shaw, Tas Dienes, Samrat Kishor

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Introduction of new participants
Selection of scribe
WG Governance
- Nominations for Chair/Vice-Chair (to present WG at PGB meetings) see Reminder above
- Nominations for Maintainer group see Reminder above
Discussion on meeting times and frequency (PROPOSAL: Biweekly starting after our next meeting)
Final Review of proposed Eth Magician and Eth Research Posts on our Workitem 1 (Bridging Digital Assets with Residuals) here and publishing schedule.
Open Forum for other items

Notes

Reminder about Doodle poll for meeting times https://doodle.com/poll/g64z5hbmsfcfbf57?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link
Reminder about last call for vice-chair of the group. After the meeting, we will ask OASIS to send out a voting ballot to the WG members
Call for maintainers to nominate themselves
Andreas is working on Eth Magician and Eth Research Posts on our Workitem 1 (Bridging Digital Assets with Residuals) here
Meeting schedule will move to biweekly starting in March. Next meeting Feb 23, then March 9. Agreed by unanimous consent.

Meeting Wed, 9 Feb 2022, 7 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund, Tas Dienes, Dan Shaw, Samrat Kishor, Cody Burns, David Katz

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Proposed agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Introduction of new participants
Selection of scribe
WG Governance: Revisit
Nominations for Chair/Vice-Chair (to present WG at PGB meetings)
Nominations for Maintainer group
Review content for Eth Magicians and Eth Research post
Issue & PR review
Open Forum

Notes:

No new participants today
Andreas Freund has been nominated for Chair.
Dan Shaw has been nominated for Vice Chair.
More nominations are welcome.
Andeas reviewed the planned Ethresearch and EthMagicians posts.
- L2/Sidechain <-> L1 and L2/Sidechain <-> L2/Sidechain Bridging Digital Assets with Residuals - #6 on L2 WG GitHub
- Discussion
- Andreas surmises that the assets described cannot be transferred with integrity
- Cody asks who can help us solve this?
- Dan proposes pulling in some finance expertise to inform a technical solution
- Cody proposes that the technical solution looks like transferring private keys between parties.
- Like changing the ownership of a bank account
- Andreas will send out an email to gather another round of feedback with the objective of posting next week.

Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 2 Feb 2022, 7 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund, Tas Dienes, Dan Shaw, Samrat Kishor, Kyle Thomas, David Katz, Marco Cora

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Introduction of new participants
Selection of scribe
WG Governance: Revisit
Nominations for Chair/Vice-Chair (to present WG at PGB meetings)
Nominations for Maintainer group
Issue and PR review
- Currently only one Issue: L2/Sidechain <-> L1 and L2/Sidechain <-> L2/Sidechain Bridging Digital Assets with Residuals
Open Forum for other topics

Notes

Nominations
- Dan Shaw nominated himself for chair or vice-chair
- Samrat and John Wolpert nominated Andreas as chair
- Andreas nominated Dan Shaw as vice-chair
- David and Kyle nominated themselves as maintainers
Andreas to inquire with OASIS about how to conduct the vote
Discussion of Issue #6 - L2/Sidechain <-> L1 and L2/Sidechain <-> L2/Sidechain Bridging Digital Assets with Residuals
- Andreas would like to post on ethresear.ch and ethereum-magicians.org
- Input from other teams is requested
- Andreas will start working on a blog post - Marco and Kyle agreed to be co-authors. David wants to dive deeper into the subject matter before committing.

Meeting Wed, 26th Jan 2022, 7 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund, Tas Dienes, Dan Shaw, John Wolpert, Samrat Kishor, Cody Burns, David Hatz, Marco Cora (new), Rahul Sethuram (new)

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Proposed agenda:

Welcome, and a reminder of WG meeting rules
Introduction of new participants
Selection of scribe
Review of new Github repo etc.
WG Governance
Nominations for Chair/Vice-Chair (to present WG at PGB meetings)
Nominations for Maintainer group
Discuss initially selected work items, and next steps
Use Cases: Digital Assets with Residuals
Technical: Precompiles for L1 -> L2 Onboarding
Requirements: Privacy requirements while maintaining security
Open Forum for other items

Notes

Reminder to use Q+ in chat if you have a question. Vote +1/-1 Rough consensus followed by group.

Marco Cora of Matter Labs, creator of ZKSynk, introduced himself.

Rahul Sethuram, CTO and Co-founder of Connext, bridging L2 and L1s. Invited by Kyle Thomas of Provide.

Andreas introduces WG GitHub, Slack, and Mailing List

GitHub: https://github.com/eea-oasis/L2 -> add yourself, if you haven’t already
Slack invite link: https://join.slack.com/t/eeacommunityp-kte2307/shared_invite/zt-120jtrzs2-zOVQ5PJi3cYmt27VlV33NQ
Mailing group link: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/eea-cp-l2
Mailing group email: eea-cp-l2@lists.oasis-open-projects.org

Minutes will still be mailed out every week after the minutes have been PRed into the WG repo.

Andreas reviewed the WG work items.

Call for nominations for Chair and Vice Chair

Duties:
- Prepare agenda
- Manage Minutes
- Represents WG at EEA Community Project PGB (Project Governing Board)
  - Meets bi-weekly
  - Chair or Vice-Chair should attend

Call for nominations for Maintainers / Code Owners Current nominations are Andreas Freund and Kyle Thomas

WG has a Doodle poll to validate best times for meeting. WG is considering alternating meeting times to include a broader group of participants.

Next week we will stick with 7am PT / 10am PT
West Coast folks register their bleary votes that 7am is rough

Initial discussion of work items

Digital assets with residuals L2 to L1 and back
- Rahul shared how the team explored creating a rebased token to make a normal ERC-20.
- Cody laid out how an asset with residuals could be abused if the asset were moved off L1 to an L2 and back to L1.
- Andreas will PR the proposal for the work item to the repo.
- Andreas asked the group about the scenario when a token owns another token.
Moving forward these working item will be the primary discussion topic for the group.

Discussion of Baseline Protocol as a potential solution for data moving back and forth from L1 to L2.

John Wolpert proposes creating a WG promotion sub-committee to get the word out.

Meeting adjourned

Meeting Wed, 19th Jan 2022, 7 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund, Tas Dienes, Samrat Kishore, Cody Burns, Matthias Geihs, David Katz, Sebastian Stammler, Kyle Thomas

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed agenda:

Welcome and reminder of the WG rules
Introduction of new members
Selection of Scribe
Update on OASIS WG infrastructure set-up and required steps from the WG e.g. selection of chairs
Discussion of suggested approach to alternate meeting times
Discussion on Work Items and selecting at least one work item to begin work

Notes

New members: Matthias Geihs from Perun, working on state channels with Sebastian Stammler; David Katz from Accenture

Github repo has been set up https://github.com/eea-oasis/general-L2-scalability

Repo name will be changed to “L2”.

Kyle proposes to be an admin. Motion approved.

Contributors will have to add themselves to the readme.md file via a PR Directories for work items and docs will be created

Andreas and Kyle will be initial maintainers who can approve PRs. PRs require 2 approvals.

Chair and vice-chair need to be chosen; AF to call for nominations by email.

Doodle poll for new meeting time(s) has been sent out

Slack will be set up by AF, starting with a business account

Work item discussion. We will start with these. AF to create folders.

“Managing assets with residuals”
“Precompiles of most common L2 onboarding or exit functions to reduce L2 gas costs”
“Layer 2 privacy guarantees that do not compromise on security”

** Meeting Wed, 12th Jan 2022, 7 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund, Tas Dienes, Dan Shaw, John Wolpert, Samrat Kishore, Alim Karim Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed Agenda:

Welcome and rules reminder
Selection of Scribe
Introduction of new members
Next steps to set up WG with OASIS (Github, Gitbook etc.)
Review, prioritize and select the first work items to work on and the first timelines for delivery based on our existing work item list.

Notes

The project has been approved by PGB!

Next, request OASIS to create a github repo, and select maintainer(s). Then add charter and governance docs to the repo, readme.md. Discussion of the work item list

JW suggests defining what is not an L2 and what is not

JW asks if we need a new “L2IP” standards system or use EIP system. The consensus is that we can probably use EIP system for now.

How to increase attendance: Consider alternating between two times
Tas is to create a Doodle poll

Contact potential participants 1 on 1, mention proposed work items, ask if a different meeting would help

In emails to the group, consider BCCing people who have expressed interest but don’t show up regularly

Meeting Wed, 15th Dec 2021, 7 am PT

Attending: Andreas Freund, Tas Dienes, John Wolpert, Bobbin Threadbare (Polygon Miden), Ravikant Agarwal (Polygon)

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Notes

Governance doc status - resolving comments from Chaals (EEA). Will be discussed in tomorrow’s EEA Community Project PGB meeting.

Bobbin Threadbare introduction.

Reviewed work item brainstorming doc.

Next meeting is on January 12th

Meeting: Wed, 8th Dec, 2021, 7 am PT / 10 am ET / 16:00 BST

Scribe: Tas Dienes

Proposed Agenda:

Selection of Scribe
Introduction of new participants
Meeting Minute Corrections (if required)
Update from the EEA Community Projects' Project Governance Boards meeting with regard to their feedback a-on Charter and Governance Document (TL/DR: WG is good to go to start working. Just some clarifying minor edits/additions -- will review those during our meeting. Nothing substantial) Review Workitem Backlog document -- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AzcuzBNkeQUGJ3EbtaxNHRmq91fSjAspBak26wZjSRo/edit?usp=sharing

Attendees: Andreas, Tas, Samrat, Kyle, Dan Shaw, Cody Burns, Alim Karim, Julien Marchand, Kartheek Solipuram

Tas volunteered to scribe

No new participants

Governance doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MNl3jjR5EJF3xM5QSteslklVJUKKEPCP7wHaTxSSK8c/edit?pli=1

Minor edits made to governance doc based on feedback from Dan Burnett.

The WG is also the TSC

We can switch the license from CC0 to Apache 2.0 - but Kartheek is going to check with EY legal about this

Charter doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/16LZluUzG0RSHpVpYiXVucibv_A7ZWN0GZQvvfW21tiQ/edit?pli=1

Edits made to governance doc based on feedback from Dan Burnet and others. PGB is expected to vote on these when all comments are resolved. Aim to have them approved by end of the year.

Work items https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AzcuzBNkeQUGJ3EbtaxNHRmq91fSjAspBak26wZjSRo/edit?pli=1#heading=h.n59e8xyug3dx

Kyle brought up virtualizing a L2 - containerized version of an L2 with a generalized interface. Unified interface application facing API.

Ideas from Vitalik - Tas to add to work item list

Standard or recommendation for transitioning from a sidechain to a true L2
Support the L2 ENS effort, and make sure every dapp that supports ENS also supports it
L2 state data availability backup

Kyle will work on item 2b

Andreas and Alim will work on 4b

NFTs/NFT transfer? NFT royalties cross-chain - Kartheek is interested in working with Andreas on this. Kyle too.

Next meeting December 15, then January 12. AF will send cancellations for 3 weeks in between.

Meeting: Wed, 17th Nov, 2021, 7 am PT / 10 am ET / 16:00 BST

Scribe: Dan Shaw

Attending: Andreas, Tas Dienes, Dan Shaw, Chet Ensign, Alim Karim, Karthik Solimpuram, Samrat Kishor, Sandeep Nailwal, Polygon (new member), Samrat Kishor, Sebastian Stammler, Steven Goldfeder

Andreas introduces Chet Ensign of OASIS.

Chet is the point of contact with the OASIS staff who is responsible for facilitating participants.

Explains the rules

Find a way to complete the work

OASIS has been involved in Open Source and OPEN Standards since 1993. Ensure IPR. Ensure correct voting procedures.

OASIS is particularly beneficial when the work you’re working on is desired to be an international standard.

Chet notes changes to how folks are building things. Open Source now exceeds Open Standards as a starting point. Provides open source work a path to standards. Most projects want to start as an Open Project. EEA retains the brand, governed by the OASIS process.

EEA Open Projects is the umbrella group for Baseline Protocol, JSON

The project chair reports regularly to the EEA Community Projects project governing board (PGB).

Benefits: Projects get both the EEA stamp of approval and the OASIS stamp of approval. You can determine what goes forward as an OASIS standard. OASIS can steward the standardization process through a number of international standards bodies.

Process for PGB approval: likely within 2 weeks.

Thank you, Chet.

7:25: Sandeep Nailwal representing Polygon introduces himself and provided an overview of Polygon’s offerings, involvement in the ecosystem, and interest in Layer 2.

7:30: Back to the governance review

A suggestion has been made to consider changing the license from CC0 1.0 Universal to Apache 2.0. Apache 2.0 is the default for EEA Community Projects. Chet Ensign noted that CC0 is needed by companies like EY and Accenture (organizations with audit departments).

Sebastian expressed concern that CC0 might deter some contributors from engaging with the project since it is an unknown license.

Chet asks if there were any explicit objects to Apache 2.0 as the license.

Kartheek will check with EY legal to make sure if the project only produces specification text that Apache 2.0 will be OK.

Sebastian expresses concern that solidity interface files might not be adopted if they are using the CC0 license.

No objections were made to the improved definition of the “substantial” participation requirement for working group membership.

Decision-Making Process was reviewed and ratified without objection.

The ratification Process was reviewed and ratified without objection.

Andreas called for final objections. None were made. The governance doc will be submitted with a known open issue for final license selection between CC0 and Apache 2.0, both of which are approved licenses.

From Chat:

Alim: Andreas — re. License — on my side checking with the VMW legal team as well for our participation. Expect to have an answer by next week.

Action Items:

Kartheek: To check with EY legal to make sure if the project only produces specification text that Apache 2.0 will be OK
Alim: To check with the VMW legal team as well for our participation. Expect to have an answer by next week.
Tas (as PGB member): Submit Charter and Governance doc for approval to EEA - OASIS PGB during next PGB meeting; Status: Submitted awaiting a decision on 1st of December meeting.

Meeting: Wed, 10th Nov, 2021, 7 am PT / 10 am ET / 16:00 BST

Canceled due to lack of attendance.

Meeting: Wed, 3rd Nov, 2021, 7 am PT / 10 am ET / 16:00 BST

Participants: Alim (VMWare), Cody (Accenture), Robert (ConsenSys), Julien (ConsenSys), Kyle (Provide), Samrat (Golden Next Ventures), Sebastian (Perun), Tas (Ethereum Foundation), Dan (Ethereum Foundation), Andreas (Ethereum Foundation),

11/3 Meeting Agenda

Previous Meeting Notes Corrections (if required)
Introduction of new participants
Selection of Scribe
Continue Review of WG Charter (continuing with Key Stakeholders Section)
Start WG Governance Draft Review
Action items from 11/3 WG meeting
Action item: WG members to review & provide feedback on any headlines/sections missing from governance doc
Action item: WG members to review details of sections in governance doc
Action item: Andreas to invite Chad from OASIS to the next meeting to give feedback on charter, governance & license (CC0)

Review & Correction of notes from the last meeting Notes for this meeting will include corrections from Samrat
Intro of new members Kyle, Alim, Julien
Selection of Scribe for this meeting Alim
Review of WG Charter

4.1 Stakeholder section

Sponsors definition - intended to be organizational supporters of this WG. Sponsors don't have other commitments other than favorable PR mention.

Sponsors of EEA Community Projects indirectly are sponsors of this initiative - to be added into Stakeholder section

Chains this WG will focus on

Definition: Which chains are we actively writing standards for? Focus on public blockchains, add specificity by targeting EVM compatible chains so that standards developed are not overly generic

Team members

Keep as a rolling list as orgs join

4.2 WG milestones - 2021

Reviewed milestones in doc

Launch -- done

Charter by mid-Nov -- on track

Success metrics for WG by EO Nov -- on track

Kick off one workstream by EO 2021 --

Goals:

Added goal #6 ("Facilitate interoperability between different applications ...") based on the last WG discussion.

Refine wording to include environment/tooling aspects

List of L2 projects out there?

Published by EEA (authored by Andreas) this week.

L2 beat.

4.3 Budget N/A at this time

4.4 Constraints

Constraints WG members are Proposal: Lean/agile standards development - smaller initiatives with frequent delivery. Example: defining smart contract input/output standards. No objections to this.

Assumptions EVM-compatible was added as an assumption. Risks & Dependencies No changes

Charter doc walkthrough & edits complete

Governance Doc (link):

Doc originated from Baseline governance doc Action item: WG to provide feedback on any headlines/sections missing from governance doc

Decision: Will run current doc by the OASIS representative on the PGB to get early feedback

License and Patent Policies

Repo to be provided by OASIS free of charge

Once this is an official working group in the EEA, members will have to sign entity (org contribution) and individual CLAs (community contribution) Code of conduct

Linked to Baseline Code of Conduct. Reviewed pledge & other sections. WG members to review and agree on the code of conduct linked in Governance Doc. Applies to other sections as well.

License: Creative Commons License: CC0 - Overview provided by Andreas, key point: all contributors pledge they're not going to sue anyone for the code/IP, it's their IP, give up right to sue anyone that is using this IP within the established context of newly created IP. A commercial product could be built from

Apply to all code created by this group or specific repos? Any contributions/PRs fall under this license.

Action item: Andreas to invite Chad from OASIS to the next meeting to give feedback on charter, governance & license (CC0) No objections to this license model

The Working Group:

WG initial members - anyone that signs the charter is eligible to participate and pledges to contribute, bound by governance, etc. WG addition - same process as initial members i.e. signing charters. Non-members can lurk but only members that have signed can contribute & be vote-eligible. Added "and signed charter" to the WG section.

Decision-making process:

The section is lengthy & will require discussion. Skipped for the next session.

Contributors No comments/changes

Maintainers

Contributions

Ratification

no comments/changes

Updated Meeting Minutes: Meeting: Wed, 27th Oct, 2021, 7 am PT / 10 am ET / 16:00 BST

Changes:

Corrected Smart's Company Name to Golden Next Ventures
Added Scribe

Scribe: Imran

Participants: John Wolpert (Consensys), Samer Falah (J.P. Morgan), Imran Bashir (J.P. Morgan), Andreas Freund (QLC Chain), Tas (Ethereum Foundation), Dan Shaw (Ethereum Foundation), Samrat Kishor (Golden Next Ventures), A.J. Warner (Arbitrum), Sebastian Stammler (Perun), San Safai (Perun), Bruno Maia (Cartesi), Steven Goldfeder (Arbitrum), Kartheek Solipuram (Ernst & Young), Julien Marchand (Consensys), Cody Burns (Accenture)

Introductions:

Tas: standards development, risks of the ecosystem, mitigate risks, L2 interoperability
Dan Shaw: year and a half, helping enterprises for Mainnet adoption, it turns out that enterprises need L2. focused on enterprise adoption, and expectations from enterprise
Sam: This is an interesting topic. We should focus on performance, scalability, and privacy with L2, looking for a Layer 2 solution. Focus on industry standards and ensure scalability. We can engage existing projects too.
John Wolpert: chair of baseline protocol / Oasis, baseline protocol is a new standard for coordination under zero-knowledge, have a clear framework to ensure following standards, shouldn’t require things like state machine to do coordination
Samrat Kishor: L2 is the next wave of growth, strategy background, baseline community, technical steering committee. regional head of EEA for India
Sebastian Stammer (Perun): academic background, a group doing state channels, from the technical university of Darmstadt
AJ Warner: from Arbitrum :
Sasan Safai : from Perun,
Bruno Maia: from Cartesi, excited to see what this group will bring to standards and interoperability.
Steven Goldfeder - optimistic rollup, Arbitrum, CEO Arbitrum , working with different enterprise
Kartheek Soluipuram - at EY, solution architecture, baseline protocol. EY scalability and privacy, a family of layer 2 solutions, nightfall, keen on how to standardize
Julien Marchand - Consensys - zk-rollups , happy to be here,
Robert Drost, (16502792061 - ) R&D effort at Consensys mesh , L1 and L2 protocols, largely around state channels
Andreas Freund – active in the blockchain ecosystem, lead author of baseline protocols standards, was at Consensys. Worked on ZK-rollup, apply learnings from baseline to large ecosystem for scalability, what looks sensible for the enterprise, very excited to be here.

Minutes:

Andreas: described meeting rules which were emailed earlier

Have a transcriber on a rotating basis to take notes, post them in the channel, if the meeting is recorded, notes are automatically recorded
Scribe required
Meeting rules described
Governance emailed
Rules: everyone to be kind, for the betterment

Cody burns: introduction . . ., from Accenture

Andreas: question to the group, is everyone OK with meeting rules

Andreas: charter of the group. Two ways, quick review, share screen, Q&A session, specific questions, went through the charter. Available at google docs (insert link)

Tas: I like goals, but standards should be mentioned more explicitly.

Samrat: should we include ESG?

Andreas: probably we can

Bruno: good idea,

Samrat: Blockchains consume a lot of energy and generate carbon .. Standardize to switch to greener protocols

Sam: I will comment on ESG after but scalability is the main focus and we should focus on privacy and performance as well … ESG is not our core focus at this point

Bruno: ESG could be the indirect result . . . I believe that we should align early to ESG

Samrat: we can add it later if clearer goal in future

Andreas: Leave ESG as an open topic

Tas: Added a suggestion, facilitating interoperability among different L2s and L1s, and developing appropriate standards

Andreas: ESG should be incorporated now? Poll taken? Some +1s

Cody: intro: Accenture blockchain, metaverse, identity, happy to work on L2

Andreas: read Scope from the google docs document

Samrat: where is this initiative going, would L2 will evolve into Layer 3.

Andreas: go with the flow... We’ll see

Bruno: good question, the difference between L2 and L3, L2 on top of sidechain, it can be named as layer 3

Andreas: recited scope in the charter

John Wolpert: if this group works under EEA, then participants must be members of EEA, otherwise if OASIS then it can be open, need some money from sponsors, if OASIS route: add some cash, as it’s a community project, if under EEA: grants can be given . . Emphasized coordination issues when it comes to money and grants.

Andreas: agree with John, however, once something significant is produced. Then donation bucket can be passed around at that time

John: it's serious business . . .

Andreas: True

John: I’ll rest here

Andreas: Segway, to WG chains

Andreas: proposal for WG chains

Andreas: park that item for next week, discuss it at next week’s meeting, thank you for a great meeting

Meeting adjourned

Files

meeting_minutes.md

Latest commit

History

meeting_minutes.md

File metadata and controls

Meeting Minutes: Technical Specification of General Layer 2 Blockchain Scalability Solutions for EVM-compatible public Blockchains WG

Meeting Wed, 22 August 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 8 August 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 24 July 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 10 July 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 26 June 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 12 June 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 29 May 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 15 May 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 1 May 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 17 April 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 3 April 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 20 March 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 6 March 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 21 February 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 07 February 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 24 January 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 10 January 2024, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 27 December 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 13 December 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 29 November 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 1 November 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 18 October 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 4 October 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 20 September 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 6 September 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 12 July 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 28 June 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 14 June 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 31 May 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 17 May 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 03 May 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 19 April 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 5 April 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 22 March 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 08 March 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 22 Feb 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 08 Feb 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 25 Jan 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 11 Jan 2023, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 30 Novt 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 16 Novt 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 2 Novt 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 19 Oct 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 5 Oct 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 21 Sep 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 7 September 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 24 August 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 10 August 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 27 July 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 13 July 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 29 June 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 15 June 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 1 June 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 18 May 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 4 May 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 20 Apr 2022, 7:00 am PT

Meeting Wed, 6 Apr 2022, 1:30 pm PT

Meeting Wed, 23 Mar 2022, 7 am PT

Meeting Wed, 09 Mar 2022, 7 am PT

Meeting Wed, 23 Feb 2022, 7 am PT

Meeting Wed, 16 Feb 2022, 7 am PT

Meeting Wed, 9 Feb 2022, 7 am PT

Meeting Wed, 2 Feb 2022, 7 am PT

Meeting Wed, 26th Jan 2022, 7 am PT

Notes

Meeting Wed, 19th Jan 2022, 7 am PT

Notes

Notes

Meeting Wed, 15th Dec 2021, 7 am PT

Notes

Meeting: Wed, 8th Dec, 2021, 7 am PT / 10 am ET / 16:00 BST

Meeting: Wed, 17th Nov, 2021, 7 am PT / 10 am ET / 16:00 BST

Meeting: Wed, 10th Nov, 2021, 7 am PT / 10 am ET / 16:00 BST