Update eip-725 to adhere to the last definition #3110
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels like a totally new EIP, in which case I would recommend a new EIP number. That being said, I am kind of annoyed by people treating draft EIPs as final so I'm not actually opposed to this since maybe this kind of drastic rewrite will help discourage that behavior.
The frontmatter stuff does need to be fixed prior to merge though.
EIPS/eip-725.md
Outdated
| title: Proxy Account | ||
| author: Fabian Vogelsteller (@frozeman), Tyler Yasaka (@tyleryasaka) | ||
| title: ERC-725 Smart Contract Based Account | ||
| author: Fabian Vogelsteller <fabian@lukso.network>, Tyler Yasaka (@tyleryasaka) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you are the primary author, I recommend leaving your GitHub username in here as the bot struggles with email addresses sometimes. If you want both you can do:
| author: Fabian Vogelsteller <fabian@lukso.network>, Tyler Yasaka (@tyleryasaka) | |
| author: Fabian Vogelsteller (@frozeman), Fabian Vogelsteller <fabian@lukso.network>, Tyler Yasaka (@tyleryasaka) |
EIPS/eip-725.md
Outdated
| discussions-to: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/725 | ||
| status: Draft | ||
| type: Standards Track | ||
| category: ERC | ||
| requires: ERC165, ERC173, ERC1271 (optional) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| requires: ERC165, ERC173, ERC1271 (optional) | |
| requires: 165, 173, 1271 |
Frontmatter is very strict on formatting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think having the ERC is important as there will be other standards proposals from other chains, that are relevant to Ethereum smart contracts as well. In LUKSO we use LSP (LUKSO standard proposals), that will heavily extend 725
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you feel strongly about this, I recommend bringing it up to the EIP editors in Discord or via a pull request to EIP-1 and the validator bot. In the meantime, I recommend making this suggested change if you want to get this merged.
EIPS/eip-725.md
Outdated
| created: 2017-10-02 | ||
| --- | ||
| updated: 2020-07-02 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| updated: 2020-07-02 |
There is no updated field. git commit history is the source of truth for that information should someone want it.
EIPS/eip-725.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| **This is the new 725 v2 standard, that is radically different from [ERC 725 v1](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/ede8c26a77eb1ac8fa2d01d8743a8cf259d8d45b/EIPS/eip-725.md). ERC 725 v1 is be moved to #734 as a new key manager standard.** | ||
| -------- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| **This is the new 725 v2 standard, that is radically different from [ERC 725 v1](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/ede8c26a77eb1ac8fa2d01d8743a8cf259d8d45b/EIPS/eip-725.md). ERC 725 v1 is be moved to #734 as a new key manager standard.** | |
| -------- |
EIPs should be written for future readers who don't care about the history. If someone wants to see the progression of an EIP, they can go read through git history or the discussion link.
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>
Changed proposed key `ERC725Type` to `SupportedStandards` to allow more (sub)standards to be communicated by an ERC725 contract
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because: - It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s) - The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP - The build is passing
This PR adjust 725 to the latest discussion version found here: #725