* Fix confusion BLS sigs vs BLS curve
* Fix BLS sigs / BLS curve confusion
And deleted the "standard" naming for the CFRG BLS sig draft (it is not a standard, and is far from the status of an IETF standard)
* Fix from review + IETF link
Linking to general page https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-bls-signature/ rather than version-specific (unless where relevant), as 04 will likely be superseded by a new version.
* Fix from review + IETF link
* Clarification
Co-authored-by: Alex Beregszaszi <alex@rtfs.hu>
Co-authored-by: Alita Moore <alita.moore805@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alex Beregszaszi <alex@rtfs.hu>
I have gone through and updated all existing EIPs to match this rule, including EIP-1.
In some cases, people were using markdown citations, I suspect because the long-form was a bit verbose to inline. Since the relative path is quite short, I moved these to inline but I wouldn't be opposed to putting them back to citation format if that is desired by the authors.
In doing the migration/cleanup, I found some EIP references to EIPs that don't actually exist. In these cases I tried to excise the reference from the EIP as best I could.
It is worth noting that the Readme actually already had this rule, it just wasn't expressed properly in EIP-1 and the "Citation Format" section of the readme I think caused people a bit of confusion (when citing externally, you should use the citation format).
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
