update to add some notes about how to handle the

maximum blob count

EIPS/eip-7742.md

@@ -21,9 +21,11 @@ The execution layer no longer verifies the blob maximum and receives the target
 
 Following EIP-4844, the execution layer (EL) maintains a hard-coded blob target value and blob maximum value. Given the relationship
 of the EL and the consensus layer (CL) node software, the verification of the blob maximum is redundant so it can be removed
-entirely without any change in security. This EIP also changes how the EL sources the current blob target value for two reasons:
+entirely without any change in security. The blob maximum is still provided during block construction via the Engine API.
+This EIP also changes how the EL sources the current blob target value for two reasons:
 
 1) Gain more flexibility over the value, rather than the static `TARGET == MAX // 2` relation in EIP-4844.
+
 2) Uncouple development and deployment of the CL and EL layers in the event it is desirable to change the blob target value.
 
 ## Specification
@@ -87,11 +89,19 @@ Additionally, any reference to `TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK` from EIP-4844 can be
 
 Otherwise, the specification of EIP-4844 is not changed. For example, blob base fee accounting and excess blob gas tracking occur in the exact same way.
 
+### Block construction
+
+The Engine API is extended to provide both the `target_blob_count` and the `maximum_blob_count` when the CL requests the EL to construct a payload for proposal.
+
+These values should be used to ensure the correct number of blobs are included in any constructed payload, and to ensure that the blob base fee accounting is correctly computed.
+
 ## Rationale
 
 ### Why not have the CL also compute the blob base fee and remove any notion of blob counts from EL processing?
 
-TODO
+Hoisting the full computation into the CL is possible, but it does violate the separation of concerns between these two layers of the protocol stack.
+The CL maintains a maximum value to address e.g. DoS risks, and the EL maintains knowledge of the target value to address fee accounting.
+Putting the target computation in the CL violates the respective responsibilities of each layer.
 
 ## Backwards Compatibility