| sip | title | description | author | discussions-to | status | type | category (*only required for Standards Track) | created | requires (*optional) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<to be assigned> |
<The SIP title is a few words, not a complete sentence> |
<Description is one full (short) sentence> |
<a comma separated list of the author's or authors' name + GitHub username (in parenthesis), or name and email (in angle brackets). Example, FirstName LastName (@GitHubUsername), FirstName LastName <[email protected]>, FirstName (@GitHubUsername) and GitHubUsername (@GitHubUsername)> |
<URL> |
Draft |
<Standards Track, Meta, or Informational> |
<Core, Networking, Interface, or SRC> |
<date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format> |
<SIP number(s)> |
This is the suggested template for new SIPs.
Note that a SIP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your SIP, please use an abbreviated title in the filename, sip-draft_title_abbrev.md.
The title should be 44 characters or less. It should not repeat the SIP number in title, irrespective of the category.
Abstract is a multi-sentence (short paragraph) technical summary. This should be a very terse and human-readable version of the specification section. Someone should be able to read only the abstract to get the gist of what this specification does.
The motivation section should describe the "why" of this SIP. What problem does it solve? Why should someone want to implement this standard? What benefit does it provide to the Seaport ecosystem? What use cases does this SIP address?
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and RFC 8174.
The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Seaport platforms.
The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages.
All SIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The SIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. SIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for SIPs that are affecting consensus changes. If the test suite is too large to reasonably be included inline, then consider adding it as one or more files in ../assets/sip-####/.
An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to assist in understanding or implementing this specification. If the implementation is too large to reasonably be included inline, then consider adding it as one or more files in ../assets/sip-####/.
All SIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surfaces risks and can be used throughout the life cycle of the proposal. E.g. include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks and how they are being addressed. SIP submissions missing the "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. A SIP cannot proceed to status "Final" without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.