✅ All reviewers have approved.

I am +1 on execution spec and -1 on yellow paper.

I am +1 on execution spec and -1 on yellow paper.

I need the Yellow Paper as a reference in order to make #6269 backwards-compatible. There were no execution specs in 2014 onwards...

There are going to be some changes to the EIP process that will affect how it interacts with the execution-specs. Unfortunately we don't know exactly what those changes are going to be, and it might not make a ton of sense to allow links to the execution-specs (eg. if we have a whole new process for execution-spec changes.) I'm hesitant to allow links to EELS until the dust settles on that.

There are going to be some changes to the EIP process that will affect how it interacts with the execution-specs.

Sorry I'm confused - 2 weeks ago you ask me here to open a PR to EIP-1 to add the proposed links. Now it seems the world has completely changed since then. I would appreciate some transparency about what is happening on the EIP process side since it significantly impacts my own EIP proposal #6269. I know you state that you don't know what changes will happen, but could you explain quickly at least what process you're running? That would be much appreciated.

Sorry I'm confused - 2 weeks ago you ask me here to open a PR to EIP-1 to add the proposed links.

Yeah, sorry about the confusion. It's easier to talk about governance issues when we have a concrete pull request to discuss.

After discussing on today's EIPIP meeting, I think we're generally positive on adding this. I'll bug @lightclient in case he absolutely doesn't want to allow Yellow Paper links.

Thanks for the heads-up - a quick question for discussion here. As you might know, I also plan to draft an EIP on Full Ethereum Equivalence and for that, I would have to partially use the Ethereum Consensus Tests. Now I wanted to ask whether there is a clear objection from your side to adding this as well. As background, many zkEVMs and optimistic Rollups use this metric to showcase compatibility or even equivalence.

Now I wanted to ask whether there is a clear objection from your side to adding this as well.

Please add that in a separate PR. Adding it to this PR will make it harder to reach a consensus (or a compromise, if need be).

Please add that in a separate PR. Adding it to this PR will make it harder to reach a consensus (or a compromise, if need be).

Sure, will do it once I drafted the EIP where this is needed.

The commit 33c436e (as a parent of 75ffa88) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

I suppose I have no strong objection to linking to the tests repository.

@SamWilsn but would like to have it as part of this PR already? As pointed out by @Pandapip1, I don't want to make it harder to find a consensus for this PR :)

@pcaversaccio I'm a bit concerned that the more links that are allowed in a single PR, the harder it will be to get any of them merged. Already, the Yellow Paper is the only thing that's blocking this PR.

@Pandapip1 agreed - so I will refrain from submitting another link.

In the meantime, feel free to submit more PRs!

I will submit the PR with the additional links once I drafted the EIP for Full Ethereum Equivalence. However, before doing this we need first to find an agreement in #6269.

I honestly think linking to the Yellow Paper should also be allowed, fwiw. Even if the Execution Specs are the canonical way moving forward, the Yellow Paper was the original specification, and was still at the least a definitive part of defining Ethereum until the migration to the Specs began (all of the problems with it notwithstanding).

imho it's easy to envision EIPs that make reference to the Yellow Paper to validate assertions or define what expected behavior is within the context of an EIP. As such, the logical course would be to allow links to the Paper, again imho.

@lightclient @SamWilsn @Pandapip1 - any update on how we progress from here now?

We're just waiting on more editors to approve or voice their objections.

I am in strong favor of allowing both Yellow Paper and Execution Spec. If no full consensus, I am ok to merge a PR to add Exec-Specs first and wait for consensus to merge another PR to add Yellow Paper.

I absolutely do not think the yellow paper should be an acceptable resource in the EIPs repository.