Skip to content

Conversation

@SergioDemianLerner
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 9, 2025

Dependency Review

✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.

OpenSSF Scorecard

PackageVersionScoreDetails

Scanned Manifest Files

Copy link
Contributor

@fmacleal fmacleal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice and important addition, good job! 🙂

I have added a few suggestions with some small typos and simple changes in the text. But it doesn't prevent the approval.


## Motivation

[RSKIP 194](./RSKIP194) proposes a modification in the block header to allow extending the block header without interfering with thew PowHSMs.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suggestion:

Typo error.

Suggested change
[RSKIP 194](./RSKIP194) proposes a modification in the block header to allow extending the block header without interfering with thew PowHSMs.
[RSKIP 194](./RSKIP194) proposes a modification in the block header to allow extending the block header without interfering with the PowHSMs.


[RSKIP 351](./RSKIP351) indicates how this field is appended to the extensioin data.

This RSKIP add one additional field `baseEvent` to the block header extension , and also redefines the version number such that both `txExecutionSublistsEdges` and `baseEvent` fields can be included.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suggestion:

Just adding the version number explicitly here.

Suggested change
This RSKIP add one additional field `baseEvent` to the block header extension , and also redefines the version number such that both `txExecutionSublistsEdges` and `baseEvent` fields can be included.
This RSKIP add one additional field `baseEvent` to the block header extension , and also redefines the version number to 2 such that both `txExecutionSublistsEdges` and `baseEvent` fields can be included.


If parallel transaction is not activated, then the value `txExecutionSublistsEdges` is left empty.

This RSKIP does not specify how the content of `baseEvent` is selected by the miners, not how the content is verified by the consensus code (these tules will be specified in a separate RSKIP).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suggestion:

Typo in (these tules will be specified in a separate RSKIP)? Should it be rules instead of tules?


RSKIP 144 and RSKIP351 defines how new fields are added using an header extension and how the block header is serialized. RSKIP351 also adds a new field to help parallel transaction processing. This RSKIP adds another field to the header extension and defines a new version number higher than the previous one.

Alternatively, we could use a bitmap for the version field, so that each bit specifies the presence (or absence) of each conditional field in the block header extension. However, this complicates consensus code when parsing the header as allows all field subsets to exist. If no parallel transaction processing is activated, leaving the field `txExecutionSublistsEdges` empty and additing a new element to the RLP list is simpler.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suggestion:

Typo in additing.

Suggested change
Alternatively, we could use a bitmap for the version field, so that each bit specifies the presence (or absence) of each conditional field in the block header extension. However, this complicates consensus code when parsing the header as allows all field subsets to exist. If no parallel transaction processing is activated, leaving the field `txExecutionSublistsEdges` empty and additing a new element to the RLP list is simpler.
Alternatively, we could use a bitmap for the version field, so that each bit specifies the presence (or absence) of each conditional field in the block header extension. However, this complicates consensus code when parsing the header as allows all field subsets to exist. If no parallel transaction processing is activated, leaving the field `txExecutionSublistsEdges` empty and adding a new element to the RLP list is simpler.


[RSKIP 144](./RSKIP144) adds a new field to the header called `txExecutionSublistsEdges`.

[RSKIP 351](./RSKIP351) indicates how this field is appended to the extensioin data.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suggestion:

Typo in extensioin.

Suggested change
[RSKIP 351](./RSKIP351) indicates how this field is appended to the extensioin data.
[RSKIP 351](./RSKIP351) indicates how this field is appended to the extension data.

| 516 |[Precompiled contracts for +/* on Secp256k1](IPs/RSKIP516.md)| 10-APR-2025 | SDL | Usa | Core | 2 | Adopted |
| 517 |[Block time-centric difficulty adjustment with uncle threshold](IPs/RSKIP517.md)| 29-MAY-2025 | PDG | Sec,Sca | Core | 1 | Draft |
| 518 |[Network Upgrade: Reed](IPs/RSKIP518.md)| 13-JUN-2025 | AE | Usa, Sca | Core | 3 | Adopted |
| 535 |[Add the baseEvent field to the Block header extension](IPs/RSKIP535.md)| 08-OCT-2025 | SDL | Sca | Core | 1 | Draft |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suggestion:

Just to highlight the name of the field.

Suggested change
| 535 |[Add the baseEvent field to the Block header extension](IPs/RSKIP535.md)| 08-OCT-2025 | SDL | Sca | Core | 1 | Draft |
| 535 |[Add the `baseEvent` field to the Block header extension](IPs/RSKIP535.md)| 08-OCT-2025 | SDL | Sca | Core | 1 | Draft |

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants