Regarding the comment on ICRC-37 on GitHub, we discussed this again in the ICRC-1 WG meeting and came to the conclusion that we do not need to have a method to expose ICRC-37 metadata in ICRC-37, but that the ICRC-37-specific metadata (e.g., icrc37:max_approvals_per_token_or_collection and icrc37:max_revoke_approvals) is returned by the metadata method icrc7_collection_metadata of the base standard (ICRC-7 here). This makes it easier for implementers as they only need to call one method to get all the metadata. With the prefixes of metadata items (e.g., icrc37:max_approvals_per_token_or_collection), it is clear to which standard implemented in a system this metadata item applies. So we don’t loose anything from not having the separate method. However, we think that the methods for accessing the individual metadata items should be in ICRC-37, e.g., icrc37_max_approvals_per_token_or_collection and icrc37_max_revoke_approvals should be there in ICRC-37.
This approach would be suitable to be established as a best practice for ICRC so that not every project needs to rediscuss this.
We also discussed that it makes sense to add the following new metadata as advanced generic ledger implementations can benefit from knowing those metadata attributes:
I’ll implement those changes this afternoon unless hearing back negative opinions related to those ideas. Those changes are within the scope of what the WG has voted on and do not invalidate the votes.
As the ICRC-7 and ICRC-37 are considered final now, perhaps modulo some small / editorial changes if we see issues, the next step is to present it in one of the upcoming Global R&D meetings, ideally, the public one, and then go for an NNS vote.
New topics for the NFT WG
We also need a new topic to continue work on. This is, most probably, the full NFT standard with integrated marketplace that @skilesare has already made a draft for. Any other suggestions for our next topic?
I think we need to use ICRC-3, otherwise we have too many different standards around. As you mentioned, ICRC-3 will take some more time. Maybe going with a stop-gap solution until ICRC-3 is ready would make most sense.