Update EIP-1: Suggest that EIPs use RFC 8174 (updates RFC 2119)

[xinbenlv]

RFC 2119 is updated by 8174. Have we discussed whether or not to adopt 8174?

[eth-bot]

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

---

(fail) eip-1.md

classification
updateEIP

• Changes to EIP 1 require at least 5 unique approvals from editors; there's currently 1 approvals; the remaining editors are @axic, @Pandapip1, @lightclient, @gcolvin

(fail) eip-template.md

classification
ambiguous

• 'eip-template.md' must be in eip-###.md format; this error will be overwritten upon relevant editor approval

[Pandapip1]

The EIP template should be updated if this change is made.

[xinbenlv]

@Pandapip1 updated eip-template.md

Now

1. Request to remove label waiting: EIP number
2. Request for review and merge

[Pandapip1]

Request to remove label waiting: EIP number

Can't do it, it's automated. We're working on a fix.

Request for review and merge

👍

[xinbenlv]

If there is no objection, and we have not fixed the bot yet, I'd suggest a manual merge so new EIPs can start using RFC 8174

[Pandapip1]

LGTM.

[xinbenlv]

Is there a reason you don't update the actual RFC number in the anchor?

Which anchor? Could you share the screenshot of what you refer to?

[xinbenlv]

Can we at least move it to an endnote? It's just clutter when dropped into the middle of the most important part of an EIP.

@gcolvin
I agree with you. I am just not sure markdown syntax supports endnote as well as LaTex etc. Would it be ok to you if I update it in a followup PR? We can update the policy in EIP-1 first. In a follow up PR we can address the formatting of endnote or footnote in the eip-template.md without all editors' approval, I am assuming?

[SamWilsn]

GFM supports footnotes like this[^1]

[^1]: hello

GFM supports footnotes like this¹

Footnotes

1. hello ↩

[Pandapip1]

GFM supports footnotes like this

Does CommonMark?

[xinbenlv]

I'm generally OK with this, but if would cause a less clutter as a footnote. I'd be even happier to make this a general policy that applies to all EIPs, and doesn't need to be repeated in every one of them.

Got it. Do you mind I get the policy approved (EIP-1) first, and then I can work on the footnoting on a separate PRs e.g. updating the template, which requires less editor approval I'm assuming?

[xinbenlv]

@axic @lightclient IIUC this proposal require your editor approval too. Could you share your feedback or approval?

[lightclient]

LGTM

[lightclient]

Are we going to update all the EIPs that only refer to RFC 2119?

[xinbenlv]

Are we going to update all the EIPs that only refer to RFC 2119?

@lightclient
I don't think it's necessary to update all existing EIPs.

I think we can just update the template so new EIPs will gradually adopt it. Also RFC 2119 or RFC 8174 are both recommendations not requirements so if some author want to opt-out they shall have the freedom to do so. (even EIP-1 itself didn't adopt it as far as I know.)

[xinbenlv]

Friendly ping @axic for last approval

[xinbenlv]

@gcolvin also need your approval.
I will move it to footnote in a separate PR addressing the format on eip-template.md if that's the only concern from you.

[Pandapip1]

Are we going to update all the EIPs that only refer to RFC 2119?

This is only a suggestion. EIPs are free to use or not use it. I know the general gist of RFC 8174 and it seems like generally a good idea, but requiring it for past EIPs would actually be a normative change in some cases.

[xinbenlv]

Discussed EIPIP meeting 66 and editors on the call @SamWilsn @lightclient are ok to merge this PR with update that removes links from eip-template.md for now until EIPW updates.

[xinbenlv]

Thanks @SamWilsn, LGTM