ECIP: 1
Title: ECIP Purpose and Guidelines
Status: Draft
Type: Meta
Author: Your Name <[email protected]>
Created: 2017-11-30
ECIP stands for Ethereum Classic Improvement Proposal. Each ECIP is a design document providing information to the Ethereum Classic community, or describing a new feature for Ethereum Classic or its processes or environment. The ECIP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature. The ECIP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions.
We intend ECIPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, for collecting community input on an issue and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into Ethereum Classic. Because the ECIPs are maintained as text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal.
There are three kinds of ECIP:
-
A Standard Track ECIP describes any change that affects most or all Ethereum Classic implementations, such as a change to the [https://github.com/ethereum/yellowpaper Yellow Paper], the network protocol, a change in block or transaction validity rules, or any change or addition that affects the interoperability of applications using Ethereum Classic. Furthermore, Standard Track ECIPs can be broken down into the following categories. ** Consensus - Currently there is not an established discussion on Consensus. ** Networking - Currently Networking discussion tracks in the [https://github.com/ethereum/devp2p devp2p repository].
-
An Informational ECIP describes an Ethereum Classic design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Ethereum Classic community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational ECIPs do not necessarily represent the Ethereum Classic community consensus or a recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore Informational ECIPs or follow their advice.
-
A Meta ECIP describes a process surrounding Ethereum Classic or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Meta ECIPs are like Standard Track ECIPs but apply to areas other than the Ethereum Classic protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Ethereum Classic's codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational ECIPs, they are more than recommendations, and users are typically not free to ignore them. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment used in Ethereum Classic development.
The ECIP repository Collaborators change the ECIPs status. Please send all ECIP-related email to the ECIP Collaborators, which are listed under ECIP Editors below. Also see ECcIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow.
The ECIP process begins with a new idea for Ethereum Classic. It is highly recommended that a single ECIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. Small enhancements or patches that don't affect consensus often don't need an ECIP and can be injected into the Ethereum Classic development workflow with a patch submission to the corresponding Ethereum Classic issue tracker. The more focused the ECIP, the more successful it tends to be. The ECIP Editor reserves the right to reject ECIP proposals if they appear too unfocused or too broad. If in doubt, split your ECIP into several well-focused ones.
Each ECIP must have a champion -- someone who writes the ECIP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The ECIP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is ECIP-able. Posting to the [https://forum.ethereum.org/categories/protocol-and-client-discussion Protocol Discussion] forum or opening an [https://github.com/ethereum/EIP/issues Issue] is the best way to go about this.
Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing an ECIP is meant to save the potential author time. Asking the Ethereum Classic community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the Internet does not always do the trick). It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will work for most people in most areas where Ethereum Classic is used.
Once the champion has asked the Ethereum Classic community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft ECIP should be presented as a Pull Request. This gives the author a chance to flesh out the draft ECIP; to make properly formatted, of high quality, and to address initial concerns about the proposal.
If the ECIP collaborators approves, the ECIP editor will assign the ECIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, give it status "Draft", and add it to the git repository. The ECIP editor will not unreasonably deny an ECIP. Reasons for denying ECIP status include duplication of effort, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the Ethereum Classic philosophy.
The ECIP author may update the Draft as necessary in the git repository. Updates to drafts may also be submitted by the author as pull requests.
Standards Track ECIPs consist of three parts, a design document, implementation and finally if warranted an update to the [https://github.com/ethereum/yellowpaper formal specification]. The ECIP should be reviewed and accepted before an implementation is begun, unless an implementation will aid people in studying the ECIP. Standards Track ECIPs must be implemented in at least two viable Ethereum Classic clients before it can be considered Final.
ECIP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on an ECIP before submitting it for review. However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions should be avoided. Strategies to keep the discussions efficient include: having the ECIP author accept private comments in the early design phases, setting up a wiki page or git repository, etc. ECIP authors should use their discretion here.
For an ECIP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the protocol unduly.
Once an ECIP has been accepted, the implementations must be completed. When the implementation is complete in at least two viable clients and accepted by the community, the status will be changed to "Final". An update to the [https://github.com/ethereum/yellowpaper formal specification] should accompany the "Final" status change.
An ECIP can also be assigned status "Deferred". The ECIP author or editor can assign the ECIP this status when no progress is being made on the ECIP. Once an ECIP is deferred, the ECIP editor can re-assign it to draft status.
An ECIP can also be "Rejected". Perhaps after all is said and done it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of this fact.
ECIPs can also be superseded by a different ECIP, rendering the original obsolete. This is intended for Informational ECIPs, where version 2 of an API can replace version 1.
The possible paths of the status of ECIPs are as follows:
Some Informational and Process ECIPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. ECIP 1 (this ECIP).
Each ECIP should have the following parts:
-
Preamble -- RFC 822 style headers containing metadata about the ECIP, including the ECIP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and optionally the contact info for each author, etc.
-
Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
-
Specification -- 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 Ethereum Classic platforms (cpp-ethereum, go-ethereum, ethereumj, ethereumjs).
-
Motivation -- The motivation is critical for ECIPs that want to change the Ethereum Classic protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the ECIP solves. ECIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
-
Rationale -- 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.
-
The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
-
Backwards Compatibility -- All ECIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The ECIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. ECIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
-
Implementations -- The implementations must be completed before any ECIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the ECIP is accepted. It is better to finish the specification and rationale first and reach consensus on it before writing code.
ECIPs should be written in markdown format. Image files should be included in a subdirectory for that ECIP.
Each ECIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with "*" are optional and are described below. All other headers are required.
ECIP: <ECIP number>
Title: <ECIP title>
Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email address>
* Discussions-To: <email address>
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Rejected |
Withdrawn | Final | Superseded>
Type: <Standards Track | Informational Meta>
Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
* Replaces: <ECIP number>
* Superseded-By: <ECIP number>
* Resolution: <url>
The Author header lists the names, and optionally the email addresses of all the authors/owners of the ECIP. The format of the Author header value must be
Random J. User [email protected]
if the email address is included, and just
Random J. User
if the address is not given.
If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following RFC 2822 continuation line conventions.
Note: The Resolution header is required for Standards Track ECIPs only. It contains a URL that should point to an email message or other web resource where the pronouncement about the ECIP is made.
While an ECIP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft phase), a Discussions-To header will indicate the mailing list or URL where the ECIP is being discussed. No Discussions-To header is necessary if the ECIP is being discussed privately with the author.
The Type header specifies the type of ECIP: Standards Track, Informational, or Meta.
The Created header records the date that the ECIP was assigned a number. Both headers should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14.
ECIPs may have a Requires header, indicating the ECIP numbers that this ECIP depends on.
ECIPs may also have a Superseded-By header indicating that an ECIP has been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the number of the ECIP that replaces the current document. The newer ECIP must have a Replaces header containing the number of the ECIP that it rendered obsolete.
ECIPs may include auxiliary files such as diagrams. Such files must be named ECIP-XXXX-Y.ext, where "XXXX" is the ECIP number, "Y" is a serial number (starting at 1), and "ext" is replaced by the actual file extension (e.g. "png").
It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of ECIPs to a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author of the transferred ECIP, but that's really up to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is because the original author no longer has the time or interest in updating it or following through with the ECIP process, or has fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don't agree with the direction of the ECIP. We try to build consensus around a ECIP, but if that's not possible, you can always submit a competing ECIP.
If you are interested in assuming ownership of a ECIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the ECIP editor. If the original author doesn't respond to email in a timely manner, the ECIP editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :).
The current ECIP editors are
- All volunteers in the Ethereum Classic Project github organization
For each new ECIP that comes in, an editor does the following:
- Read the ECIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to be accepted.
- The title should accurately describe the content.
- Edit the ECIP for language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.), markup (for reST EWIPs), code style
If the ECIP isn't ready, the editor will send it back to the author for revision, with specific instructions.
Once the ECIP is ready for the repository, the ECIP editor will:
-
Assign an ECIP number (almost always just the next available number)
-
Accept the corresponding pull request
-
List the ECIP in [[README.md]]
-
Send email back to the ECIP author with next step.
Many ECIPs are written and maintained by developers with write access to the Ethereum Classic codebase. The ECIP editors monitor ECIP changes, and correct any structure, grammar, spelling, or markup mistakes we see.
The editors don't pass judgment on ECIPs. We merely do the administrative & editorial part. Except for times like this, there's relatively low volume.
For Ethereum Classic implementers, ECIPs are a convenient way to track the progress of their implementation. Ideally each implementation maintainer would list the ECIPs that they have implemented. This will give end users a convenient way to know the current status of a given implementation or library.
ECIPs are intended to replace the venerable etherpads which described the initial PoC (Proof of Concept) and strike a balance between ease of accessibility and trackablity.
Fork the ECIP repo. Write an ECIP using the ECIP markdown template and initiate a pull request.
This document, recently edited for the specific use of Ethereum Classic, was derived heavily from [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips Bitcoin's BIP-0001] written by Amir Taaki which in turn was derived from [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/ Python's PEP-0001]. In many places text was simply copied and modified. Although the PEP-0001 text was written by Barry Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton, and David Goodger, they are not responsible for its use in the Ethereum Classic Improvement Process, and should not be bothered with technical questions specific to Ethereum, Ethereum Classic, or the ECIP. Please direct all comments to the ECIP editors.