Add ERC: Account Abstraction Validation Scope Rules #105
Conversation
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
eip-review-bot
changed the title
|
@abcoathup - This ERC references EIP-1153, (transient storage), but the linter keeps complaining that ERC-1153 doesn't exist... |
drortirosh
changed the title
eip-review-bot
changed the title
|
@abcoathup, @SamWilsn - can you explain why this PR can't be merged? it passes all validations in this ERC (all reported errors by "HTML proofer" are in other, unrelated ercs...) |
drortirosh
changed the title
misc changes
|
The commit 47df0e0 (as a parent of 31154b1) contains errors. |
| type: Standards Track | ||
| category: ERC | ||
| created: 2023-09-01 | ||
| --- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These proposals seem like they'd be important to read before implementing the rules referencing them (OP-70 / OP-62).
| --- | |
| requires: 1153, 7212 | |
| --- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
both 1153 and 7212 are optional.
We do declare the validation rules in their presence, but the rules are valid even on networks they are missing, so "requires" seems like a strong word. Is there an equivalent "optional" ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dror, I know it's a bit confusing but requires here means "to understand this EIP/ERC, it requires the other EIP/ERC listed here". It doesn't mean the other EIP/ERCs listed in requires is a Specification-wise dependency.
It seems in the context 1153 and 7212 are a fit for the requires. I'd also include 4337.
That said, I won't consider having or not having these requires a blockage for merge as Status: Draft
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't include erc-4337, since 4337 actually requires this one, and it would cause a circular dependency.
I strongly suggest that if "requires" means "it is a mere reference for understanding this erc", then it should be renamed accordingly.
(btw: the HTML processor could generate these "references" automatically. an editor should explicitly specify what is really "required".
Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com>
- clarify motivation and rationale - clearly define eip-7212 and erc-1153 as optional
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
drortirosh
dismissed stale reviews from eip-review-bot and xinbenlv
via
c3eefef
When opening a pull request to submit a new EIP, please use the suggested template: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/eip-template.md
We have a GitHub bot that automatically merges some PRs. It will merge yours immediately if certain criteria are met: