Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Execution Layer Meeting 203 #1227

Open
timbeiko opened this issue Dec 20, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

Execution Layer Meeting 203 #1227

timbeiko opened this issue Dec 20, 2024 · 7 comments

Comments

@timbeiko
Copy link
Contributor

timbeiko commented Dec 20, 2024

Meeting Info

Agenda

@abcoathup
Copy link

@fjl
Copy link

fjl commented Jan 7, 2025

I would like to discuss RPC standardization on this meeting. Specifically, I would like to resolve the following:

  • The role of rpc-compat hive tests. How do clients perceive the value of these tests? We maintain them as a separate artefact in the execution-apis repo so that clients can pull them into their unit tests. But nobody does that, probably. They also run on hive, but there are a lot of minor client issues that prevent them from being green. Ideally we'd reach a point where all clients pass all tests.
  • Spec considerations: we have some stuff in the spec for backwards-compatibility, like v signature value on transactions. It's hard to remove because the RPC client space is so open-ended, so have opted for keeping this around. I know some client-specific fields exist, such as author on blocks for Nethermind. Should these be added to the spec as well?
  • How to deal with extension proposals: there are a few open issues on the execution-apis repo where people proposed new methods. Sometimes these proposals would require extensive client changes. What's the process for landing an RPC extension?

Update: I made a document about the state of the RPC spec process, and some open questions: https://notes.ethereum.org/@fjl/rpc-standards-2025-01

@chfast
Copy link
Member

chfast commented Jan 9, 2025

EIP-7623 spec clarification. Requires updating a lot of tests.

@Sophia-Gold
Copy link

I'd like to ask client teams to immediately set the default gas limit on Holesky to 36M and once Pectra is on Holesky increase to 60M.

The idea is for Holesky to always have a higher gas limit than mainnet so we can spot bugs earlier and have an idea what increases are safe.

@chfast
Copy link
Member

chfast commented Jan 15, 2025

Potential EIP-2537 (BLS precompiles) update: ethereum/EIPs#9245.

@ralexstokes
Copy link
Member

we should discuss clarifying behavior of the blob base fee computation at the fork boundary (and may need a clarification to EIP-7691 to make this explicit)

@Jrachman
Copy link

Given all of the recent discussion about EXTCODE*’s behavior with 7702, @dave-carroll7 and I put together a technical writeup into code introspection, its relationship with EOF, and a simple path forward: https://hackmd.io/@otim/H1Q7yCHDyl

This seems to be the final sticking point for 7702 and hope that we can reach closure at ACD!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants