EIP-2228: Promote to Review #3302

fulldecent · 2021-02-28T16:16:35Z

Promoting to Last Call

eip-automerger · 2021-02-28T16:20:31Z

Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s):

Trying to change EIP 2228 state from Draft to Review

MicahZoltu

Recommend removing Vitalik's name from the motivation. I think it is better to just refer to it being called XXX in EIP-YYY rather than appealing to authority and saying who the speaker was in each case.

EIP links must be in the form [EIP-XXX](./eip-XXX.md)

Remove the external link to Geth. We can instead just say that some client documentation calls it mainnet.

Consider just mentioning in the motivation that it is called X, Y, and Z in various EIPs and around the internet. Presumably, once we finalize this EIP someone will go through and clean up the EIPs with the incorrect name at which point all of the links to "evidence" will no longer make sense. If the motivation of this EIP just says "there are places where it is called these other things" then we don't have to worry about their mutability.

Remove ## References section, it isn't a standard EIP section.

Remove ## Implementation section, it isn't a required section and since it contains no reference implementation it can be removed.

poojaranjan · 2021-03-02T20:04:37Z

I think there is an intermediary status "Review" introduced with the new EIP Standardization process.

Instead of moving it to the "Last Call", @fulldecent consider moving to the "Review" status.

MicahZoltu · 2021-03-03T07:07:28Z

Oh, good catch @poojaranjan. This should definitely be moving to Review rather than Last Call.

fulldecent · 2021-03-06T20:20:53Z

@MicahZoltu all items are addressed in these commits. Requesting, please, your promotion to Review status with these changes by merging this PR.

EIPS/eip-2228.md

MicahZoltu · 2021-03-06T22:38:23Z

EIPS/eip-2228.md

+The Ethereum network with chainid 1 is referenced using several conflicting names across EIPs (as published at the time EIP 2228 was written), client implementations, and information published on the internet at large:

-* Vitalik has called it "main net" at http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-155 http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-170
-* Vitalik has called it "mainnet" at http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-86 
-* Vitalik has called it "Main net" at http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2* http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-150
+* "main net" at [EIP-155](./eip-155.md), [EIP-170](./eip-170.md)
+* "mainnet" at [EIP-86 [DRAFT]](./eip-86.md), [client documentation](https://geth.ethereum.org/support/FAQ)
+* "Main net" at [EIP-2](./eip-2.md), [EIP-150](./eip-150.md)
   * \* In EIP-2, it is unclear if the first letter is capital because it is a proper noun or if it is the the first word in a text column presented in sentence case
-* Vitalik has called it "Mainnet" at http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7
-* Geth documentation calls its "mainnet" at https://geth.ethereum.org/support/FAQ
-* A final EIP here has referred to it as "Mainnet" at http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-779
+* "Mainnet" at [EIP-7](./eip-7.md), [EIP-779](./eip-779.md)
+
+In several examples above, even papers written by the same author use (as published at the time EIP 2228 was written) inconsistent names to refer to the Ethereum network with chainid 1.


Suggested change

The Ethereum network with chainid 1 is referenced using several conflicting names across EIPs (as published at the time EIP 2228 was written), client implementations, and information published on the internet at large:

* Vitalik has called it "main net" at http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-155 http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-170

* Vitalik has called it "mainnet" at http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-86

* Vitalik has called it "Main net" at http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2* http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-150

* "main net" at [EIP-155](./eip-155.md), [EIP-170](./eip-170.md)

* "mainnet" at [EIP-86 [DRAFT]](./eip-86.md), [client documentation](https://geth.ethereum.org/support/FAQ)

* "Main net" at [EIP-2](./eip-2.md), [EIP-150](./eip-150.md)

* \* In EIP-2, it is unclear if the first letter is capital because it is a proper noun or if it is the the first word in a text column presented in sentence case

* Vitalik has called it "Mainnet" at http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7

* Geth documentation calls its "mainnet" at https://geth.ethereum.org/support/FAQ

* A final EIP here has referred to it as "Mainnet" at http://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-779

* "Mainnet" at [EIP-7](./eip-7.md), [EIP-779](./eip-779.md)

In several examples above, even papers written by the same author use (as published at the time EIP 2228 was written) inconsistent names to refer to the Ethereum network with chainid 1.

The Ethereum network with chainid 1 is referenced using several conflicting names across EIPs, client implementations, and information published on the internet at large. In several locations, even documents written by the same author use inconsistent names to refer to the Ethereum network with chainid 1. Names in use at the time of this writing include:

* `main net`

* `mainnet`

* `Main net`

* `Mainnet`

At the least, you'll need to remove draft EIPs from the list and the external link to https://geth.ethereum.org/support/FAQ. I don't believe that linking to these documents provides any future value to this EIP so I recommend just getting rid of all of the links and instead just providing a list of options you have seen used around the internet.

Also, I recommend adding something to the motivation section that explains why there is value in consistency here, as I think that is more important than showing that there is a historic lack of consistency.

This is adopted substantially at 199121d

MicahZoltu · 2021-03-06T22:38:48Z

EIPS/eip-2228.md

+### Trademark note
+
+Note: Ethereum [is a registered trademark](https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86634529&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch) of Ethereum Foundation and [the Foundation asserts](https://ethereum.org/en/terms-of-use/) "you must not use [this mark] without the prior written permission of the Foundation".
+
+Your application MAY reference "Ethereum&reg; Mainnet" and include a note "Ethereum is a registered trademark of Ethereum Foundation" elsewhere.
+
+Trademark status, fair use of trademarks, and any written permissions you have with the Ethereum Foundation are outside the scope of this EIP.
+


The general EIP policy is to not include any external links. Also, I feel like an EIP is not the appropriate place to mention trademarks or other legal statuses. If people want to read the ToU they can read the ToU, no need to restate it here. Your last line of this sums up my position pretty cleanly, but feels unnecessary to include in the EIP.

Suggested change

### Trademark note

Note: Ethereum [is a registered trademark](https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86634529&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch) of Ethereum Foundation and [the Foundation asserts](https://ethereum.org/en/terms-of-use/) "you must not use [this mark] without the prior written permission of the Foundation".

Your application MAY reference "Ethereum® Mainnet" and include a note "Ethereum is a registered trademark of Ethereum Foundation" elsewhere.

Trademark status, fair use of trademarks, and any written permissions you have with the Ethereum Foundation are outside the scope of this EIP.

The normative part of this comment is addressed in b5ccfed. I refer further discussion to the discussions-to page.

fulldecent · 2021-03-07T01:57:30Z

@MicahZoltu has raised a few points here:

Whether it is appropriate to mention Geth in a document surveying usage of "main net" wording
Whether EIPs may link to things
Whether a document published under the (delegated) authority of Ethereum Foundation and discussing the naming of a product created by the Ethereum Foundation is appropriate to reference a written policy Ethereum Foundation already has on usage of that name

I would like a chance to make points on these topics.

At the moment, this PR is requesting to promote EIP-2228 into "Review" status which represents "An EIP Author marks an EIP as ready for and requesting Peer Review". I think "Review" is an appropriate status given the level of discussions we are having and I request that those above questions are closed without prejudice here so they can be more appropriately considered at the EIP Discussions-To address.

MicahZoltu · 2021-03-07T02:09:26Z

Ah, I forgot that this was Review and not Last Call (just updated PR title to reflect that).

That being said, the bar to get to Review is that it follows all of the current editorial rules (no external links, no links to draft EIPs).

While I agree that my commentary on the terms of use reference is perhaps a discussion that could happen elsewhere and could is a change that isn't necessary for moving to Review, the link to it goes against our current policy of no external links.

We can move the discussion of whether ToU is appropriate over to the discussions-to link if you like, but if you want to propose a change the current policy of no external links that probably should happen elsewhere (unrelated to this EIP).

fulldecent · 2021-03-10T04:33:09Z

The requirement "no external links" is not documented. Here is a PR that adds that documentation: #3358

The requirement "no links to draft EIPs" is not documented. Here is a PR that adds that documentation: #3357

Well noted, thank you

I have made commits to address all normative feedback here. Requesting please a ⬇️ CREATE A MERGE COMMIT, and for discussion to continue at the discussion-to address.

Promote to last call

8b6cd1c

MicahZoltu suggested changes Mar 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

fulldecent added 5 commits March 6, 2021 14:36

Move to review status

5c94ace

Use inline references

135a1da

Add legal/trademark notes

b994b08

Remove useless and optional Implementation section

14be2c7

Add editor note

602622b

MicahZoltu reviewed Mar 6, 2021

View reviewed changes

EIPS/eip-2228.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update EIPS/eip-2228.md

c4a7673

MicahZoltu suggested changes Mar 6, 2021

View reviewed changes

MicahZoltu changed the title ~~Promote to last call~~ Promote to Review Mar 7, 2021

fulldecent mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2021

EIP-1: disallow links to external domains #3358

Closed

fulldecent added 2 commits March 9, 2021 22:52

Remove external links, per ethereum#3358

b5ccfed

Remove all references to draft EIPs, add complete backward compatibil…

199121d

…ity note git clone...; cd EIPS rm $(egrep -l 'status: Draft|status: Review|status: Withdrawn|status: Last Call' * ) grep -h 'status: ' * | sort -u grep -iw 'main \?net' * | sort

fulldecent changed the title ~~Promote to Review~~ EIP-2228: Promote to Review Mar 10, 2021

MicahZoltu merged commit 4d1be5b into ethereum:master Mar 11, 2021

phi-line pushed a commit to phi-line/EIPs that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2021

EIP-2228: Promote to Review (ethereum#3302)

721dfa4

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

EIP-2228: Promote to Review #3302

EIP-2228: Promote to Review #3302

fulldecent commented Feb 28, 2021

eip-automerger commented Feb 28, 2021 •

edited

Loading

MicahZoltu left a comment

poojaranjan commented Mar 2, 2021

MicahZoltu commented Mar 3, 2021

fulldecent commented Mar 6, 2021 •

edited

Loading

MicahZoltu Mar 6, 2021

fulldecent Mar 10, 2021

MicahZoltu Mar 6, 2021

fulldecent Mar 10, 2021

fulldecent commented Mar 7, 2021

MicahZoltu commented Mar 7, 2021 •

edited

Loading

fulldecent commented Mar 10, 2021

EIP-2228: Promote to Review #3302

EIP-2228: Promote to Review #3302

Conversation

fulldecent commented Feb 28, 2021

eip-automerger commented Feb 28, 2021 • edited Loading

MicahZoltu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

poojaranjan commented Mar 2, 2021

MicahZoltu commented Mar 3, 2021

fulldecent commented Mar 6, 2021 • edited Loading

MicahZoltu Mar 6, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fulldecent Mar 10, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MicahZoltu Mar 6, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fulldecent Mar 10, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fulldecent commented Mar 7, 2021

MicahZoltu commented Mar 7, 2021 • edited Loading

fulldecent commented Mar 10, 2021

eip-automerger commented Feb 28, 2021 •

edited

Loading

fulldecent commented Mar 6, 2021 •

edited

Loading

MicahZoltu commented Mar 7, 2021 •

edited

Loading