# Merge Interop Spec [toc] This document defines the version of the Merge specification that should be implemented as a prerequisite for the Interop and provides additional guidance to client developers. ## Spec versions The Merge specification has a number of different sources that should be aligned with each other to avoid incompatibility issues between consensus and execution client implementations. We define the following versions for each of these documents to be used during the Interop: | Specification | Release / Commit | Reference | | - | - | - | | Consensus spec | `v1.1.1` | [`v1.1.1`](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/tree/v1.1.1/specs/merge) | | Consensus spec tests | `v1.1.1` | [`v1.1.1`](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-spec-tests/releases/tag/v1.1.1) | | EIP-3675 | `504954e3bba2b58712d84865966ebc17bd4875f5` | [`504954e3`](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/504954e3bba2b58712d84865966ebc17bd4875f5/EIPS/eip-3675.md) | | Engine API | `v1.0.0-alpha.2` | [`v1.0.0-alpha.2`](https://github.com/ethereum/execution-apis/blob/v1.0.0-alpha.2/src/engine/interop/specification.md) | ## Consensus client Consensus clients must satisfy the following requirements to be conformant with the Interop spec: * Implement all consensus-specs with exception for the Client Settings section * Implement all Engine API calls (synchronous) * Pass all consensus-spec tests ### Engine API Consensus client implementation must call Engine API methods in a *synchronous* fashion to avoid potential inconsistencies in the block tree and fork choice data across the layers that might be induced via unexpected message ordering. Keeping local representation of the network data in a consistent state between the layers in an asynchronous environment requires additional design and specification work and is out of the scope for the initial Interop. ## Execution client Execution clients must satisfy the following requirements to be conformant with the Interop spec: * Implement all changes introduced by the EIP-3675 * Implement Engine API server (synchronous) ### The `random` field The `random` field has been introduced into the `ExecutionPayload` in the consensus-specs and the Engine API, but an EIP introducing this field to the execution layer is pending. For initial Interop, execution client must adhere to the following rules and requirements with respect to the `random` field: * Support the `random` field of the `ExecutionPayload` structure defined in the Engine API spec * Set the `random` field of the payload sent in response to the `engine_getPayload` call to the value supplied in the corresponding `engine_preparePayload` call * Ignore the `random` field value while processing the `engine_executePayload` call ### Timestamp validation As the `timestamp` value is strictly validated by consensus clients, it is recommended an execution client software turns off any validations that are related to the `timestamp` field during building and processing an execution payload. ### Engine API It is recommended for the execution client software to respond with `4: Unknown header` error to the `engine_preparePayload`, `engine_forkchoiceUpdated` method calls if any block referenced by either of these calls hasn't been confirmed as valid by the corresponding `engine_consensusValidated` call. If no sync strategy is yet supported by the execution client software, it is recommended to respond with `4: Unknown header` error to the `engine_executePayload` call if the parent block of the payload supplied by this call is either unknown or hasn't been confirmed as valid by the corresponding `engine_consensusValidated` call. ## Sync Sync process affects every part of the post-Merge client software, starting from consensus-layer client that should understand when the execution counterparty is syncing and react accordingly, going through the Engine API that communicates sync status between the layers, and ending up in execution-layer client which does the job on pulling chain data from the wire. The key goal of the design of the sync process is to allow execution clients to switch between different strategies of syncing with the network without making any changes to the Engine API and consensus client implementations. While the sync process implementation is not a strong requirement for the Interop, we encourage client developers to prototype sync beforehand in order to evaluate design proposals, identify the pain points of the sync process during the transition and after the Merge, and be able to engage deeply on the topic during the Interop. ### Proposals on the sync process design * https://github.com/fjl/p2p-drafts/blob/master/merge-sync/merge-sync.md
Last changed by  
 
Mikhail Kalinin
5093

Read more

In-Protocol deposits PoC scope

Specification Execution Layer EIP-6110 Conensus Layer #3177 Engine API eip6110.md Specification work [x] Explore design space without pending_queue in the beacon state, #08c728, #23c10c. [x] Rebase spec with Deneb/Cancun [ ] Confirm that a significant increase of a number of top ups per epoch is fine wrt WS period computation. [ ] Confirm that CL client devs are fine with taking the (pubkey, index) cache complexity in favour of complexity related to pending_queue.

5/18/2023
In-Protocol deposits PoC sync calls

Call 9 Meeting Date/Time: Thursday 2023/5/4 at 15:30 UTC Meeting Duration: 45 minutes Agenda Devnet/testing updateseip6110 transition issue blockscout setup Other discussion points

5/4/2023
Engine API: Shanghai checks

Source: https://github.com/ethereum/execution-apis/blob/main/src/engine/shanghai.md [x] Paris payloads MUST be processed by newPayloadV2 and forkchoiceUpdatedV2[x] case with forkchoiceUpdatedV2 and payloadAttributes == null, and Paris block data [x] case with forkchoiceUpdatedV2 and payloadAttributes == null, and Shanghai block data [x] case with forkchoiceUpdatedV2 and payloadAttributes = {data of the first Capella slot} etc [x] EL MUST return -32602: Invalid params in the following cases: [x] newPayloadV2ExecutionPayloadV1 passed with timestamp >= SHANGHAI_TIMESTAMP

2/2/2023
In-Protocol Deposits breakout

Next steps Explore design space without pending_queue in the beacon stateTransition: process block.body.deposits and block.body.execution_payload.deposits in parallel instead of queuing the latter and waiting for the former to fill the gap (proposed by Peter Davies) WS period: confirm that a significant increase of a number of top ups per epoch is fine (pubkey, index) cache: confirm that CL client devs are fine with taking this engineering complexity in favour of complexity related to pending_queuedata complexity of two queues is higher than of one because of top ups, each top up would take a separate record in the pending_queue while all top ups for the same validator are accumulated in a single record in the validator registry sig verification complexity: limited by a size of EL block, worth re-evaluating Evaluate a number of deposits per 30M gas block that advanced attacker can induce by making multiple deposits in one transaction (reduced cost by removing base tx fee and re-using warmed up state slot reads/writes) -- Peter Davies to do the evaluation one deposit per transaction consumes 50-60k gas and results in 500-600 deposits per 30M gas block at max; this number can be doubled with the tricks

1/26/2023
Read more from Mikhail Kalinin
Published on HackMD