-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Mark EIP-4361 for Review #5034
Mark EIP-4361 for Review #5034
Conversation
All tests passed; auto-merging...(pass) eip-4361.md
(pass) assets/eip-4361/example.js
(pass) assets/eip-4361/package.json
(pass) assets/eip-4361/signing.png
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You'll have to remove the external links from the "Reference Implementation" section. If it's relatively short/self-contained, you can add it under the assets/eip-4361
directory of this repository.
Otherwise, I think this looks good to go to review!
Updated to remove the section from the EIP and migrated it into the assets dir for EIP-4361 |
assets/eip-4361/Notes.md
Outdated
## Reference Implementation | ||
The reference implementation is in TypeScript and available at [https://github.com/spruceid/siwe](https://github.com/spruceid/siwe). It is also available on [NPM](https://www.npmjs.com/package/siwe). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but generally we don't allow external links (even in the assets directory.)
What I meant was that you can include the reference implementation directly (not as a submodule) to this directory.
Edit: You should also keep the Reference Implementation
section:
## Reference Implementation
A reference implementation is available under [../assets/eip-4361](../assets/eip-4361).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You can't actually link to a directory like this. You have to link to a specific file (there is no directory listing capabilities in the rendered page).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @MicahZoltu in this case would it be best practice to link to the readme in the assets folder?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is one option. My general recommendation is to trim the reference implementation down to one file if possible. An ideal reference implementation focuses exclusively on the stuff that matters for a standard, and doesn't include a bunch of unrelated things that aren't critical for understanding/following the standard. When this is done, one can usually get the reference implementation down to something pretty small. If the reference implementation is still bigger than one file after this, it usually means the EIP is trying to do too much and is a good indication that perhaps it should be split up into multiple smaller EIPs that address more constrained issues.
Informative Fixes Across the Spec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few requests:
- please remove the
.DS_Store
files - please rename
Notes.md
toREADME.md
- remove period after "Ethereum" in title
Please see https://github.com/obstropolos/EIPs/pull/2 for additional editor feedback. |
EIP-4361 feedback
Update EIP-4361 Contract Address Guidelines
Thanks again for the additional feedback! It has been merged in. Let me know if there's anything else here! |
Latest changes made based on comments. Thanks again @SamWilsn! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking pretty good other than a nit on ordering of sections.
|
||
- EIP-712 has the advantage of on-chain representation and on-chain verifiability, such as for their use in metatransactions, but this feature is not relevant for the specification's scope. **(2)** | ||
- Why not use JWTs? Wallets don't support JWTs. The keccak hash function is [not assigned by IANA](https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/jose.xhtml) for use as a JOSE algorithm. **(2, 3)** | ||
- Why [EIP-191](./eip-191.md) (Signed Data Standard) over [EIP-712](./eip-712.md) (Ethereum typed structured data hashing and signing) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think EIP-712 is supported in all major wallets? I realize it isn't final status and we are working on it - I wouldn't want that to affect your decision on using 191 and not 712.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This specifically dealt with display to the end-user. Specifically where the wallet has no custom view for something like SIWE and defaults to the basics - the person is presented with a wall of JSON [712] instead of a personal sign message which has the advantage of being human-readable.
@obstropolos might need to close and reopen the PR to get the required checks to run. |
Closing and reopening |
author: Wayne Chang (@wyc), Gregory Rocco (@obstropolos), Brantly Millegan (@brantlymillegan), Nick Johnson (@Arachnid) | ||
discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-4361-sign-in-with-ethereum/7263 | ||
status: Draft | ||
status: Review | ||
type: Standards Track | ||
category: ERC | ||
created: 2021-10-11 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, you'll need to sort out the following line.
Looks like EIP-1328 is stagnant. It'll need to go into review before this one can.
* Mark EIP-4361 for Review * Move reference impl section out of EIP * This contains some fixes, only informative, no normative changes... * fix: fixed reference links * fix: added reference implementation based on v1.1.6 * fix: undoing must since not in the core spec * fix: fixed typo * remove licenses from ref impl and update with file locations * updated spec and added new reference implementation * removed period from title * Remove added .DS_store * EIP-4361 editor feedback * Update EIP-4361 Contract Address Guidelines * Update EIP references, rationale section name, and title * Moved security considerations section to proper location Co-authored-by: Oliver Terbu <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Wayne Chang <[email protected]>
* Mark EIP-4361 for Review * Move reference impl section out of EIP * This contains some fixes, only informative, no normative changes... * fix: fixed reference links * fix: added reference implementation based on v1.1.6 * fix: undoing must since not in the core spec * fix: fixed typo * remove licenses from ref impl and update with file locations * updated spec and added new reference implementation * removed period from title * Remove added .DS_store * EIP-4361 editor feedback * Update EIP-4361 Contract Address Guidelines * Update EIP references, rationale section name, and title * Moved security considerations section to proper location Co-authored-by: Oliver Terbu <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Wayne Chang <[email protected]>
Draft
stage toReview