Add EIP-6077: Invalidation for Signature-Based Operations #6077

k06a · 2022-12-02T12:52:24Z

No description provided.

…IP-712

eth-bot · 2022-12-02T12:53:15Z

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

(fail) eip-6077.md

classification
`newEIPFile`

File with name EIPS/eip-6077.md is new and new files must be reviewed
This PR requires review from one of [@axic, @SamWilsn, @Pandapip1]

frangio · 2022-12-02T14:26:20Z

In the context of permits I think I've seen you suggest that nonces shouldn't be sequential, so that there could be several valid permits created "in parallel". What's your current thinking on that?

k06a · 2022-12-02T14:59:40Z

@frangio maybe we can rename nonce to operationId and make those EIP to support custom invalidation logic. Implementations could use sequential ids or parallel ids however they want.

frangio · 2022-12-02T15:24:42Z

Can you name use cases that require parallel nonces? Is this common or a good idea? How does a client know which nonce to use? I'm trying to understand what extra complexity it would require and whether it might be worth it.

k06a · 2022-12-02T16:01:53Z

@frangio I discovered these 5 operations in OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts:

ERC20Permit._PERMIT_TYPEHASH (sequential invalidation)
Votes._DELEGATION_TYPEHASH (sequential invalidation)
Governor.BALLOT_TYPEHASH (parallel invalidation via proposalId or NO invalidation required)
Governor.EXTENDED_BALLOT_TYPEHASH (parallel invalidation via proposalId or NO invalidation required)
MinimalForwarder._TYPEHASH (sequential invalidation)

frangio · 2022-12-02T18:28:31Z

Based on these examples I don't think parallel nonces are needed. proposalId is not a nonce.

k06a · 2022-12-02T22:27:17Z

@frangio I see we probably don’t need parallel operation ids. But maybe we don’t have good invalidation technique, which can be invented later. I suspect there could be some cases where operation id contains spender/delegatee address and rest 96 bits are being used as nonce.

frangio · 2022-12-05T15:05:59Z

I'd remove IParallelOperations to simplify the EIP.

I think if there is parallelism it will still be sequential but the sequence will depend on more parameters, not just the signer. This could be expressed in the interface by including an additional argument like bytes params, but this is useless without a way to specify the parameters that should be included there.

k06a · 2022-12-05T20:24:08Z

@frangio what about having definition for thread-id? Original sequential behaviour have thread-id = signer, but we could have thread-id = hash(signer, spender). Nonces will still be sequential but one signer could have multiple threads of ids...

k06a · 2022-12-05T23:47:58Z

@Pandapip1 could you help us here with EIP number?

frangio · 2022-12-06T14:55:08Z

@k06a A thread id would work but it's similar to (though more efficient than) bytes params, and I think there would need to be a way to specify to clients how to create the thread id.

IMO, the ideal end goal for full generality would be the ability to create a function like getNonce(contract: Address, signer: Address, type: EIP712Type, msgWithoutNonce: EIP712Message): Promise<bigint>. I.e., given a contract and an EIP712 typed message with an empty nonce parameter obtain the nonce that should be included in that nonce parameter. Your proposal here allows a less general version of this function where the nonce does not depend on the message or other parameters, only depends on the signer. I do think this is valuable enough to standardize just that. I'm not sure how to design the more general version or if it even makes sense to think about it...

EIPS/eip-X.md

Pandapip1

Please fix the walidator errors

EIPS/eip-6077.md

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>

EIPS/eip-6077.md

Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <[email protected]>

EIPS/eip-6077.md

Pandapip1 · 2023-01-25T14:18:11Z

EIPS/eip-6077.md

+
+Same abstraction could be utilized by mutilple signature-based operations, moreover existing EIPs like [EIP-2612](./eip-2612.md) could be considered as fully compatible with the EIP.
+
+Multiple EIPs define operations that can be executed in behalf of signer and sometime introduce method naming collisions and other. For example, [EIP-2612](./eip-2612.md) defines both `permit` and `nonces` methods, but gives no clue that `nonces` is related to permit operation. In case of multiple same-level EIPs implemented within one smart contract (for example: permit, delegate, vote) it's obvious that they should use different nonces.


I can't understand what you're trying to say here. Mind explaining?

Trying to create abstraction for signature-based operations, and this abstraction also covers existing EIP-2612 somehow.

Pandapip1 · 2023-01-25T14:19:49Z

EIPS/eip-6077.md

+
+## Motivation
+
+Same abstraction could be utilized by mutilple signature-based operations, moreover existing EIPs like [EIP-2612](./eip-2612.md) could be considered as fully compatible with the EIP.


This reads like Rationale, not Motivation. Mind moving this to that section?

Pandapip1 · 2023-01-25T14:20:09Z

EIPS/eip-6077.md

+- main sequnce of incremental nonces per signer
+- sequence of incremental ids per signer per beneficiary


These should be complete sentences

Pandapip1 · 2023-01-25T14:21:39Z

EIPS/eip-6077.md

+    }
+    ```
+
+- Operation EIPs SHOULD use at leat one of the nonces or ids sequences per signer defined by this EIP or both.


Why not make this a MUST? Also, the phrasing here is a bit odd. Mind explaining?

EIPS/eip-6077.md

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>

github-actions · 2023-01-25T20:24:28Z

The commit 911c35b (as a parent of b74e02d) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

github-actions · 2023-03-18T00:17:47Z

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

k06a · 2023-04-08T20:20:25Z

Don't close it, it's still under discussion and consideration

github-actions · 2023-04-23T00:19:00Z

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

k06a · 2023-04-24T21:49:20Z

@frangio what do you think? Is it worth fixing? Do you still consider this kind of functionality in OZ library?

frangio · 2023-04-25T23:51:47Z

@k06a We're not quite thinking about this at the moment. Personally I have to look into this topic a bit more and it may need more research and discussion, and I don't think this is the place for that, so I would close this and might revisit later.

github-actions · 2023-05-10T00:16:49Z

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

github-actions · 2023-06-21T00:18:52Z

This pull request was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment.

k06a added 3 commits December 2, 2022 13:30

New EIP: Nonce management for signature-based operations powered on E…

c5bd66d

…IP-712

Rename methods to avoid collision with EIP-2612 (aka Permit)

aa01545

Fix typo

b751296

k06a requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner December 2, 2022 12:52

github-actions bot added c-new Creates a brand new proposal e-number Waiting on EIP Number assignment s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-erc labels Dec 2, 2022

k06a mentioned this pull request Dec 2, 2022

Refactor Nonces from contract to library to mitigate nonces collision between Votes and ERC20Permit OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts#3848

Open

3 tasks

Fix bug

7a211fd

k06a mentioned this pull request Dec 2, 2022

Introduce SequentialOperations abstraction for signature-based ops OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts#3850

Closed

3 tasks

Changes and fixes

8a970f1

k06a changed the title ~~EIP-TBD: Nonce management for signature-based operations powered by EIP-712~~ EIP-TBD: Invalidation abstraction for signature-based operations powered by EIP-7127 Dec 2, 2022

k06a changed the title ~~EIP-TBD: Invalidation abstraction for signature-based operations powered by EIP-7127~~ EIP-TBD: Invalidation abstraction for signature-based operations powered by EIP-712 Dec 2, 2022

Change title

1aeb60b

Introduce threads of ids per signer per beneficiary

c54471c

Pandapip1 reviewed Dec 13, 2022

View reviewed changes

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

Pandapip1 changed the title ~~EIP-TBD: Invalidation abstraction for signature-based operations powered by EIP-712~~ Add EIP-6077: Invalidation abstraction for signature-based operations powered by EIP-712 Dec 13, 2022

Pandapip1 suggested changes Dec 13, 2022

View reviewed changes

Pandapip1 suggested changes Dec 14, 2022

View reviewed changes

EIPS/eip-6077.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

EIPS/eip-6077.md Show resolved Hide resolved

EIPS/eip-6077.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

EIPS/eip-6077.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

EIPS/eip-6077.md Show resolved Hide resolved

k06a and others added 5 commits December 15, 2022 12:33

Update EIPS/eip-6077.md

4005a72

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>

Update EIPS/eip-6077.md

a1ac452

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>

Update EIPS/eip-6077.md

5c17d7c

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>

Add discussion link

651431e

Update EIPS/eip-6077.md

02e4ad6

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>

frangio mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2023

New abstractions for better nonce system OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts#3927

Open

poojaranjan mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2023

EIP Editing Office Hour Meeting 10 ethcatherders/EIPIP#204

Closed

25 tasks

SamWilsn reviewed Jan 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

EIPS/eip-6077.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update EIPS/eip-6077.md

8429d31

Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <[email protected]>

Pandapip1 changed the title ~~Add EIP-6077: Invalidation abstraction for signature-based operations powered by EIP-712~~ Add EIP-6077: Invalidation for Signature-Based Operations Jan 25, 2023

Pandapip1 suggested changes Jan 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

k06a and others added 2 commits January 25, 2023 21:17

Update EIPS/eip-6077.md

d3cf7a4

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>

Update EIPS/eip-6077.md

911c35b

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <[email protected]>

github-actions bot added the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Jan 25, 2023

poojaranjan mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2023

EIP Editing Office Hour Meeting 11 ethcatherders/EIPIP#207

Closed

27 tasks

github-actions bot added the w-stale Waiting on activity label Mar 18, 2023

github-actions bot removed the w-stale Waiting on activity label Apr 9, 2023

github-actions bot added the w-stale Waiting on activity label Apr 23, 2023

github-actions bot removed the w-stale Waiting on activity label Apr 25, 2023

github-actions bot added the w-stale Waiting on activity label May 10, 2023

github-actions bot closed this Jun 21, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add EIP-6077: Invalidation for Signature-Based Operations #6077

Add EIP-6077: Invalidation for Signature-Based Operations #6077

k06a commented Dec 2, 2022

eth-bot commented Dec 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

frangio commented Dec 2, 2022

k06a commented Dec 2, 2022

frangio commented Dec 2, 2022

k06a commented Dec 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

frangio commented Dec 2, 2022

k06a commented Dec 2, 2022

frangio commented Dec 5, 2022

k06a commented Dec 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

k06a commented Dec 5, 2022

frangio commented Dec 6, 2022

Pandapip1 left a comment

Pandapip1 Jan 25, 2023

k06a Jan 25, 2023

Pandapip1 Jan 25, 2023

Pandapip1 Jan 25, 2023

Pandapip1 Jan 25, 2023

github-actions bot commented Jan 25, 2023

github-actions bot commented Mar 18, 2023

k06a commented Apr 8, 2023

github-actions bot commented Apr 23, 2023

k06a commented Apr 24, 2023

frangio commented Apr 25, 2023

github-actions bot commented May 10, 2023

github-actions bot commented Jun 21, 2023


		Same abstraction could be utilized by mutilple signature-based operations, moreover existing EIPs like [EIP-2612](./eip-2612.md) could be considered as fully compatible with the EIP.

		Multiple EIPs define operations that can be executed in behalf of signer and sometime introduce method naming collisions and other. For example, [EIP-2612](./eip-2612.md) defines both `permit` and `nonces` methods, but gives no clue that `nonces` is related to permit operation. In case of multiple same-level EIPs implemented within one smart contract (for example: permit, delegate, vote) it's obvious that they should use different nonces.


		## Motivation

		Same abstraction could be utilized by mutilple signature-based operations, moreover existing EIPs like [EIP-2612](./eip-2612.md) could be considered as fully compatible with the EIP.

		- main sequnce of incremental nonces per signer
		- sequence of incremental ids per signer per beneficiary

Add EIP-6077: Invalidation for Signature-Based Operations #6077

Add EIP-6077: Invalidation for Signature-Based Operations #6077

Conversation

k06a commented Dec 2, 2022

eth-bot commented Dec 2, 2022 • edited Loading

(fail) eip-6077.md

frangio commented Dec 2, 2022

k06a commented Dec 2, 2022

frangio commented Dec 2, 2022

k06a commented Dec 2, 2022 • edited Loading

frangio commented Dec 2, 2022

k06a commented Dec 2, 2022

frangio commented Dec 5, 2022

k06a commented Dec 5, 2022 • edited Loading

k06a commented Dec 5, 2022

frangio commented Dec 6, 2022

Pandapip1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pandapip1 Jan 25, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k06a Jan 25, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pandapip1 Jan 25, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pandapip1 Jan 25, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pandapip1 Jan 25, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Jan 25, 2023

github-actions bot commented Mar 18, 2023

k06a commented Apr 8, 2023

github-actions bot commented Apr 23, 2023

k06a commented Apr 24, 2023

frangio commented Apr 25, 2023

github-actions bot commented May 10, 2023

github-actions bot commented Jun 21, 2023

eth-bot commented Dec 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

k06a commented Dec 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

k06a commented Dec 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading