Adds clarifying text to the EIP-155 specification. #2272
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
As someone implementing stuff related to signing in this space I have had to come back and read this EIP many times to remind myself how to properly sign/recover a transaction post EIP-155. Each time, I read this EIP and am left confused about what I'm actually supposed to do when signing. After once again digging to figure out what I'm supposed to do I decided to edit this EIP to hopefully prevent future developers (including myself) from running into the same frustration. This change is non-normative and only attempts to improve clarity of the process. If a normative change was made, this means my understanding is flawed and corrections should be made before this PR is merged. The major change is to include a section for how to generate a valid post-155 signature. The original text only explained how to _validate_ a post-155 signature and it was left up to the reader to figure out how to generate one. I chose to use **SHOULD** here because it offers the users additional security against replay attacks and generally should be preferred unless you have good reason to not sign this way. This could be widened to **MAY** if that is desirable. **MUST** would be a normative change so that was intentionally not chosen. I have also made a couple grammatical and formatting changes to the original text while editing which I felt helped improve readability.
|
I like this change. I found this issue from searching why |
|
@vbuterin can you review this? |
|
@axic At this point I don't think we are going to hear from @vbuterin. Can we move forward without that? I dislike the idea of publishing a new EIP just for a non-normative change like this that is meant to provide clarity for implementers, but I'm not sure what other option is available when the EIP author(s) are non-responsive. |
pizzarob
pushed a commit
to pizzarob/EIPs
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 12, 2020
As someone implementing stuff related to signing in this space I have had to come back and read this EIP many times to remind myself how to properly sign/recover a transaction post EIP-155. Each time, I read this EIP and am left confused about what I'm actually supposed to do when signing. After once again digging to figure out what I'm supposed to do I decided to edit this EIP to hopefully prevent future developers (including myself) from running into the same frustration. This change is non-normative and only attempts to improve clarity of the process. If a normative change was made, this means my understanding is flawed and corrections should be made before this PR is merged. The major change is to include a section for how to generate a valid post-155 signature. The original text only explained how to _validate_ a post-155 signature and it was left up to the reader to figure out how to generate one. I chose to use **SHOULD** here because it offers the users additional security against replay attacks and generally should be preferred unless you have good reason to not sign this way. This could be widened to **MAY** if that is desirable. **MUST** would be a normative change so that was intentionally not chosen. I have also made a couple grammatical and formatting changes to the original text while editing which I felt helped improve readability.
tkstanczak
pushed a commit
to tkstanczak/EIPs
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 7, 2020
As someone implementing stuff related to signing in this space I have had to come back and read this EIP many times to remind myself how to properly sign/recover a transaction post EIP-155. Each time, I read this EIP and am left confused about what I'm actually supposed to do when signing. After once again digging to figure out what I'm supposed to do I decided to edit this EIP to hopefully prevent future developers (including myself) from running into the same frustration. This change is non-normative and only attempts to improve clarity of the process. If a normative change was made, this means my understanding is flawed and corrections should be made before this PR is merged. The major change is to include a section for how to generate a valid post-155 signature. The original text only explained how to _validate_ a post-155 signature and it was left up to the reader to figure out how to generate one. I chose to use **SHOULD** here because it offers the users additional security against replay attacks and generally should be preferred unless you have good reason to not sign this way. This could be widened to **MAY** if that is desirable. **MUST** would be a normative change so that was intentionally not chosen. I have also made a couple grammatical and formatting changes to the original text while editing which I felt helped improve readability.
Arachnid
pushed a commit
to Arachnid/EIPs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 6, 2021
As someone implementing stuff related to signing in this space I have had to come back and read this EIP many times to remind myself how to properly sign/recover a transaction post EIP-155. Each time, I read this EIP and am left confused about what I'm actually supposed to do when signing. After once again digging to figure out what I'm supposed to do I decided to edit this EIP to hopefully prevent future developers (including myself) from running into the same frustration. This change is non-normative and only attempts to improve clarity of the process. If a normative change was made, this means my understanding is flawed and corrections should be made before this PR is merged. The major change is to include a section for how to generate a valid post-155 signature. The original text only explained how to _validate_ a post-155 signature and it was left up to the reader to figure out how to generate one. I chose to use **SHOULD** here because it offers the users additional security against replay attacks and generally should be preferred unless you have good reason to not sign this way. This could be widened to **MAY** if that is desirable. **MUST** would be a normative change so that was intentionally not chosen. I have also made a couple grammatical and formatting changes to the original text while editing which I felt helped improve readability.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As someone implementing stuff related to signing in this space I have had to come back and read this EIP many times to remind myself how to properly sign/recover a transaction post EIP-155. Each time, I read this EIP and am left confused about what I'm actually supposed to do when signing. After once again digging to figure out what I'm supposed to do I decided to edit this EIP to hopefully prevent future developers (including myself) from running into the same frustration.
This change is non-normative and only attempts to improve clarity of the process. If a normative change was made, this means my understanding is flawed and corrections should be made before this PR is merged.
The major change is to include a section for how to generate a valid post-155 signature. The original text only explained how to validate a post-155 signature and it was left up to the reader to figure out how to generate one.
I chose to use SHOULD here because it offers the users additional security against replay attacks and generally should be preferred unless you have good reason to not sign this way. This could be widened to MAY if that is desirable. MUST would be a normative change so that was intentionally not chosen.
I have also made a couple grammatical and formatting changes to the original text while editing which I felt helped improve readability.
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: