Mark EIP-695 as Final

[sorpaas]

#2356 (comment)

[eip-automerger]

Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s):

• Trying to change EIP 695 state from Last Call to Final

[BelfordZ]

@sorpaas @whilei could you please include the following API specification?

{ 
   "name": "eth_chainId", 
   "summary": "Returns the currently configured chain id", 
   "description": "Returns the currently configured chain id, a value used in replay-protected transaction signing as introduced by [EIP-155](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-155.md).", 
   "params": [], 
   "result": { 
     "name": "chainId", 
     "description": "hex format integer of the current chain id. Defaults are ETC=61, ETH=1, Morden=62.", 
     "schema": { 
       "title": "chainId", 
       "type": "string", 
       "pattern": "^0x[a-fA-F\\d]+$" 
     } 
   } 
 }

[sorpaas]

Ping editors as I got asked that there're other EIPs depending on this.

[axic]

I think there are still some unsolved comments on the discussion URL.

[rekmarks]

@axic Security considerations section added in: #2642

[rekmarks]

@axic, I believe that all outstanding items have been addressed as of this morning, Pacific Time.

Edit: EIP reference notation was fixed in: #2643

[rekmarks]

@axic, do the editors need anything else from the authors before this can be merged?

[rekmarks]

Summary of Resolved Last Call Issues

• The meaning of the "currently configured CHAIN_ID" should be further specified
  • Raised here
  • Addressed in EIP-695: clarify what happens if a chain initially does not have chain ID or chain ID has changed #2625
• The behavior in absence of CHAIN_ID should be specified
  • Raised here
  • Addressed in ERC-695: Specify behavior in absence of chainId #2629
• A "Security Considerations" section should be added
  • Raised here
  • Addressed in ERC-695: Add security considerations; rekmarks as author #2642

In addition, formatting issues were fixed in:

• 695: update links to eip 155 #2627
• ERC-695: Fix EIP reference notation #2643

To the best of my knowledge, those are the only issues flagged by editors, or otherwise considered necessary to address by the authors.

cc: @Arachnid