Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
164 lines (118 loc) · 8.86 KB

2023-02-14.md

File metadata and controls

164 lines (118 loc) · 8.86 KB
Raw

Monthly reporting to Catalyst submitted 2023-02-14

Period between 2023-01-24 and 2023-02-14 inclusive (note, only 20 days instead of usual month because Catalyst deadline moved earlier by 1 week + recommended margin)

Quantitative contributions

CIP pull requests @rphair involved in, by last update time = 30 in this period

CIP issues @rphair involved in, by last update time = 3 in this period

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

CIP team progress

Open pull requests (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls) = 55

Open issues (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/issues) = 28

Qualitative contributions

In last period we've still progressed in peer review extensively on GitHub despite delays in meeting schedule persisting even beyond the holidays.

Editors look forward to increasing our activity (identified in this period's one CIP meeting) in Cardano Problem Statement submissions to provide detailed feedback on CPSs to outline to authors the kind of detail that is expected (a few of them are stalled because no much can be done with a vague CPS or one not related to current or possible CIPs).

2023-02-14 CIP Editors Meeting #61 (5pm UTC)

Postponed 2 weeks because of other editor availability & community statement on Discord that the 14th would be better than the 7th.

triage

CPS-0003? | Smart tokens #382 (ISz / szist)

  • MY REVIEW
    • Cross-referenced wtih #336 - Michael's "pre-rejected" CIP for spending policies.
    • Author said   Not ready for CIPs to come from it... but 1 month ago someone said they're working on one (ERC20-like assets #444) and it's there now!
    • Still a draft so I'd say: PROMOTE FOR REVIEW & let discussion continue.
  • Michael showed up at meeting!
  • RESOLVED
    • reference (or include) CIP-0070 ("rejected") into CPS-3
    • Merging actual text will produce better documentation of the issue in the long run.
  • Christophe Garant says he'll propose doing this at L2 of Cardano instead of L1 (will comment on GitHub).
    • TO CHECK later if he did this & suggest it myself if not !!!

CPS-???? | Wallet UX #454 (Micah Kendall)

  • MY REVIEW
    • POSTED ALREADY this is too vague to be considered as a candidate
    • Marked "waiting for author" 3 weeks ago with no response yet.
    • IN MY OPINION this belongs in an issue queue, NOT A CPS, and should be closed.
      • TO OFFER to mark as such on GitHub, if consensus from other editors.
  • RESOLVED
    • specifically may be more of a criticism of CIP-0030 (default wallet behaviour)
    • KT will reiterate my comments & close it.

Michael's sums-of-products in Plutus... dropping into agenda (cardano-foundation/CIPs#455)

  • Michael: ready for "last call for objections" since they're planning to accept it.
  • KT is assigning a number & ready to put on Last Check.

Jared "ledger evolution" also drops in (cardano-foundation/CIPs#456)

  • similar to Plutus "evolution" ... but KT says need a bit more time to get community review.
  • OK to move to Last Check (and assign number).

CIP-???? | NFT Metadata Update Oracles #430 (Nicolas Ayotte)

  • MY REVIEW
    • SEBA you did review... they responded, what do you think? (CDDL changes done)
    • Peer review still ongoing.
    • I recommended some format changes, which are fixed.
    • TO SUGGEST go ahead as candidate.
  • RESOLVED
    • I also suggested maybe "metadata authenticator" would be more descriptive than "metadata oracle" (as an extension of CIP-25)
    • KT: assigning a number.

CIP-???? | Maybe Datum #440 (Icarus / Daidalos)

  • MY REVIEW
    • Combines lots of other peer reviewed threads (see OP), including some really old ones, and:
      • potential solution to CPS-???? | Spending Script Redundant Execution #418
    • Michael has reviewed & pointed out some issues which are still in debate.
    • author says "need to think about it"
    • MY SUGGESTION mark "waiting for author" (DONE)
  • RESOLVED giving number + candidacy to support more review next time.

CIP-????: Post Quantum signatures in Plutus #441 (Michał Gajda)

  • MY REVIEW

    • Too far ahead of its time to have any urgency about this.
    • main issue I think: What's the point adding to Plutus if it's not handled in Core?
    • SEBA has reviewed already.
      • No further progress so MY SUGGESTION
      • if can get maths heads to review this: keep open for their input.
      • if not... promote to candidate because jury could be out on this for years.

  • Seba has some ideas about adding some quantum restistance.

    • subject matter experts may be required to indicate how soon this needs to be done... or if needing NOW.
    • Related to "rollups" in a way that I don't personally understand.

  • Also doesn't support a single signature scheme... meanting they'd have to support them all.

  • Author is present! ("Michal" without spelling: blue head guy... I didn't notice)

    • He is defending the idea pretty well in my opinion... and the advantages of starting an implementation sooner rather than later.
    • We ended up spending half the meeting on this (!) because 3 subject matter experts are present & able to speak (Michal, KT, Seba)

  • KT: would add a lot of exotic dependencies for people to be able to build the node.

  • (with Seba) point made already that no point having it in Plutus if it's not in the node (as I think I linked before when this was just an issue by Michal before he submitted the CIP)

    • Once wallets can be smart contracts then the signatures can be handled in the wallet rather than on the protocol.
    • This would be a quicker implementation than making it dependent upon huge potential delays implementing in protocol itself.
    • Michal also comments as such: two-phase implementation... provide the API first & then "harden the blockchain".
      • BUT Inigo (head of cryptography @ IOG) thinks node should be done first (!) -KT

  • Author Michal: he can ALSO file a CPS to document general design issues.

  • question of TIMING or URGENCY is we need IO Crypto team to review this practically & mathematically... including question about overcomplicating the node.

  • RESOLVED

    • review in future meeting.  We can ping Plutus + IO crypto team in the meantime.
ran out of time ... will add these to future agenda (below are only my own personal reviews & notes)

CIP-???? | Authenticated Web3 HTTP requests #442 (Juan Salvador Magán Valero)

  • MY REVIEW

    • I read last month and think it's ready to become a candidate.

      • Things I pointed out that were fixed... mainly Path to Acdtive

    • also peer reviewed... is he here (matiwinnetou)?

    • MY SUGGESTION - OK as candidate.

CIP-0030 | Add api.signTxs() method #443 (Martin Schere)

  • MY REVIEW
    • First current test of "extension mechanism on CIP-0030" (#446)
    • I SUGGEST asking author to make this consistent with #446... in the meantime OK CANDIDATE.

CIP-???? | ERC20-like assets #444 (Michele Nuzzi)

  • MY REVIEW

    • Same problems / solutions as Smart Tokens (CIP 3)... can be considered a CIP for it.

    • SHOULD STAY DRAFT because

      • no Rationale yet (I reported that last month) ... though does have Path to Active

    • TO MARK Waiting for Author.... pending Rationale & full responses to peer reviews.

      • author himself last said "just had discussion" but without acting on that yet.

CIP-0030 | Upgrade to latest format & propose version / extension scheme #446

  • MY REVIEW - ready to go.  This is KtorZ's baby so will let him run the show on it.
    • BUT still some debate about nomenclature & whether web site ("caniuse") will define these extensions or simply document them.

review

CIP-0045? | Decentralized WebRTC dApp-Wallet Communication #395 (Fabian Bormann)

  • MY REVIEW
    • Solid, well defended proposal, as I review-commented already.
    • TO MARK "Waiting for author" since author last said "need to invest some more time" in some testing & reference implementation.

CIP-0046? | Merkelised Plutus Scripts #385 (Las Safin)

  • MY REVIEW
    • Michael says wants to "encourage the search for more ideas"
    • DO NOTHING YET still debase still ongoing...
      • MAYBE mark Waiting for Author since looks like he needs to ENGAGE WITH GitHub comments more.