-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 323
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CIP-0080 | Transaction Serialization Deprecation Cycle #372
CIP-0080 | Transaction Serialization Deprecation Cycle #372
Conversation
thanks @JaredCorduan ... not sure which one of these titles suit better; the "for Compatibility" title would be more familiar to the uninitiated (e.g. me) but all other things being equal it's probably better to have the PR title match the document. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unless @KtorZ objects this could be a good time to get ahead of the changes to CIP document standards in progress, particularly the header preamble (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/cip-cps-rework/CIP-0001/README.md#header-preamble):
Title: Transaction Serialization Deprecation Cycle | ||
Authors: Jared Corduan <[email protected]> | ||
Status: Draft | ||
Type: Standards Track |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There will no longer be a Type:
field but instead a Category:
(https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/cip-cps-rework/CIP-0001/README.md#categories) which I would think should be Ledger
. But I don't see that on the list of categories, nor do I see a Core
category that I thought I read during recent drafts of CIP-0001.
@KtorZ I must have missed something about how CIPs for core features are categorised & why they aren't on the current list of choices; what would we do in this case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd urge the respective maintainers of the various areas of the protocol to register an appropriate category for their respective areas. It is obvious that the cardano-ledger wants to engage more with the CIP process; and @JaredCorduan has been a recurring point of contact there; So simply capturing that in a document similar to CIP-0035 would be the way to go.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm happy with either, and thanks for keeping it consistent! |
0d61c2d
to
fe587c6
Compare
As discussed in the CIP meeting today, there's no "ledger" category registered yet in the CIP process. Ideally, we would want something similar to CIP-0035: Plutus Core Evolution for all areas of the protocol that engage with the CIP process. Having said that, this CIP sounds like a good foundation for a "ledger" category -- even though the current document is mainly focused on CDDL format of on-transactions, I imagine it could be extended to define the overall strategy for changes in the ledger and how people can engage with the team on these topics. |
Co-authored-by: Matthias Benkort <[email protected]>
- Add discussions - Add subtitles to 'Motivation' & 'Rationale' - Fix 'Path to Active' section.
4dd44ca
to
bac5032
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@KtorZ I agree and I cannot find anything wrong with it & don't think the Ledger team or anyone else are likely to either. I am therefore itching to merge this but guess that you wouldn't have assigned the Last Check
label unless SOP is to do this at the meeting (just going to resolve merge conflict for now).
@rphair I did put the last-check mainly as a reminder in case you guys didn't replied promptly. But I underestimated you both :p |
…dation#372) * transaction serialization CIP for compatibility * assign CIP number 80 Co-authored-by: Matthias Benkort <[email protected]> * separated hard and soft fork requirements * Update CIP-tx-serialization-deprecation-cycles/README.md * Move CIP-0080 in its dedicated folder. * Minor edits - Add discussions - Add subtitles to 'Motivation' & 'Rationale' - Fix 'Path to Active' section. * Update top-level README with CIP-0080 inclusion. --------- Co-authored-by: Matthias Benkort <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: KtorZ <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <[email protected]>
This CIP proposes a policy for how we manage the backwards compatibility of the binary format for transactions. The summary is:
(current draft in branch)