diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index e55c0351830a1..fcc45f090235a 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ title: EIP Purpose and Guidelines status: Living type: Meta author: Martin Becze , Hudson Jameson , et al. +discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/update-eip-1-eip-pain-relief-7230/15082 created: 2015-10-27 --- @@ -19,29 +20,61 @@ For Ethereum implementers, EIPs are a convenient way to track the progress of th ## EIP Types -There are three types of EIP: +There are three types of EIP: Standards Track, Meta and Informational. -- A **Standards Track EIP** describes any change that affects most or all Ethereum implementations, such as—a change to the network protocol, a change in block or transaction validity rules, proposed application standards/conventions, or any change or addition that affects the interoperability of applications using Ethereum. Standards Track EIPs consist of three parts—a design document, an implementation, and (if warranted) an update to the [formal specification](https://github.com/ethereum/yellowpaper). Furthermore, Standards Track EIPs can be broken down into the following categories: - - **Core**: improvements requiring a consensus fork (e.g. [EIP-5](./eip-5.md), [EIP-101](./eip-101.md)), as well as changes that are not necessarily consensus critical but may be relevant to [“core dev” discussions](https://github.com/ethereum/pm) (for example, [EIP-90], and the miner/node strategy changes 2, 3, and 4 of [EIP-86](./eip-86.md)). - - **Networking**: includes improvements around [devp2p](https://github.com/ethereum/devp2p/blob/readme-spec-links/rlpx.md) ([EIP-8](./eip-8.md)) and [Light Ethereum Subprotocol](https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/#light-node), as well as proposed improvements to network protocol specifications of [whisper](https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/issues/16013#issuecomment-364639309) and [swarm](https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/pull/2959). - - **Interface**: includes improvements around client [API/RPC](https://github.com/ethereum/execution-apis#README) specifications and standards, and also certain language-level standards like method names ([EIP-6](./eip-6.md)) and [contract ABIs](https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/develop/abi-spec.html). The label “interface” aligns with the [interfaces repo] and discussion should primarily occur in that repository before an EIP is submitted to the EIPs repository. - - **ERC**: application-level standards and conventions, including contract standards such as token standards ([ERC-20](./eip-20.md)), name registries ([ERC-137](./eip-137.md)), URI schemes, library/package formats, and wallet formats. +### Standards Track EIP -- A **Meta EIP** describes a process surrounding Ethereum or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process EIPs are like Standards Track EIPs but apply to areas other than the Ethereum protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Ethereum's codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational EIPs, 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 development. Any meta-EIP is also considered a Process EIP. +Describes any change that affects most or all Ethereum implementations, such as a change to the network protocol; a change in block or transaction validity rules; proposed application standards/conventions; or any change or addition that affects the interoperability of applications using Ethereum. Standards Track EIPs consist of three parts: a design document, an implementation, and (if applicable) an update to the [formal specification](https://github.com/ethereum/execution-specs). Furthermore, Standards Track EIPs can be broken down into four categories: Core, Networking, Interface, and ERC. -- An **Informational EIP** describes an Ethereum design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Ethereum community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational EIPs do not necessarily represent Ethereum community consensus or a recommendation, so users and implementers are free to ignore Informational EIPs or follow their advice. +#### Core + +Improvements requiring a consensus fork (e.g. [EIP-5](./eip-5.md), [EIP-101](./eip-101.md)), as well as changes that are not necessarily consensus critical but may be relevant to [“core dev” discussions](https://github.com/ethereum/pm) (for example, [EIP-90], and the miner/node strategy changes 2, 3, and 4 of [EIP-86](./eip-86.md)). + +#### Networking + +Includes improvements around [devp2p](https://github.com/ethereum/devp2p/blob/readme-spec-links/rlpx.md) ([EIP-8](./eip-8.md)) and [Light Ethereum Subprotocol](https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/#light-node), as well as proposed improvements to network protocol specifications of [whisper](https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/issues/16013#issuecomment-364639309) and [swarm](https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/pull/2959). + +#### Interface + +Includes improvements around client [API/RPC](https://github.com/ethereum/execution-apis#README) specifications and standards, and also certain language-level standards like method names ([EIP-6](./eip-6.md)) and [contract ABIs](https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/develop/abi-spec.html). The label “interface” aligns with the [interfaces repo] and discussion should primarily occur in that repository before an EIP is submitted to the EIPs repository. + +#### ERC + +Application-level standards and conventions, including contract standards such as token standards ([ERC-20](./eip-20.md)), name registries ([ERC-137](./eip-137.md)), URI schemes, library/package formats, and wallet formats. + +### Meta EIP + +Describes a process surrounding Ethereum or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process EIPs are like Standards Track EIPs but apply to areas other than the Ethereum protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Ethereum's codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational EIPs, 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 development. Any meta-EIP is also considered a Process EIP. + +### Informational EIP + +Describes an Ethereum design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Ethereum community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational EIPs do not necessarily represent Ethereum community consensus or a recommendation, so users and implementers are free to ignore Informational EIPs or follow their advice. + +### General Requirements It is highly recommended that a single EIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the EIP, the more successful it tends to be. A change to one client doesn't require an EIP; a change that affects multiple clients, or defines a standard for multiple apps to use, does. An EIP 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. -### Special requirements for Core EIPs +## Working Groups -If a **Core** EIP mentions or proposes changes to the EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine), it should refer to the instructions by their mnemonics and define the opcodes of those mnemonics at least once. A preferred way is the following: +Many proposals will come into EIP process via working groups who take responsibility for their specifications. Working Group concerns include the technical quality, formatting and notations for their specifications, coordination with other specifications, the workflow for their tasks and documents. And, of course, their own governance. -``` -REVERT (0xfe) -``` +* Working Group proposals first enter the EIP process (see below) as **Drafts**. +* While WG proposals are **Drafts** their Specification and workflow belongs to the WG. +* WG EIPs reenter the EIP process to become **Final**. + +A Working Group fully governs its own EIPs. To ensure this, at least one WG member should serve as an Editor with the power — within the governance of the WG — to merge PRs to EIPs/EIPS over the objections of the Github tooling or the other Editors. + +Currently, only the Core Developers are organized enough to do this job. + +### Core EIPs + +***The Specification of Core EIPs is the responsibility of the Core Developers***, who the Editors treat as an independent Working Group. + +### Editorial Services + +The editors' job, for individual authors and for working groups, is to work with the authors to ensure that proposals merged to EIPs/EIPS meet standards of quality, format, style, and usage, and to provide administrative and publication services for EIPs and related digital assets. ## EIP Work Flow @@ -53,9 +86,9 @@ Before you begin writing a formal EIP, you should vet your idea. Ask the Ethereu Once the idea has been vetted, your next responsibility will be to present (by means of an EIP) the idea to the reviewers and all interested parties, invite editors, developers, and the community to give feedback on the aforementioned channels. You should try and gauge whether the interest in your EIP is commensurate with both the work involved in implementing it and how many parties will have to conform to it. For example, the work required for implementing a Core EIP will be much greater than for an ERC and the EIP will need sufficient interest from the Ethereum client teams. Negative community feedback will be taken into consideration and may prevent your EIP from moving past the Draft stage. -### Core EIPs +#### Core EIPs -For Core EIPs, given that they require client implementations to be considered **Final** (see "EIPs Process" below), you will need to either provide an implementation for clients or convince clients to implement your EIP. +Given that Core EIPs require client implementations to be considered **Final** (see "EIPs Process" below), you will need to either provide an implementation for clients or convince clients to implement your EIP. The best way to get client implementers to review your EIP is to present it on an AllCoreDevs call. You can request to do so by posting a comment linking your EIP on an [AllCoreDevs agenda GitHub Issue](https://github.com/ethereum/pm/issues). @@ -67,54 +100,132 @@ These calls generally result in a "rough consensus" around what EIPs should be i *In short, your role as the champion is to write the EIP using the style and format described below, shepherd the discussions in the appropriate forums, and build community consensus around the idea.* + ### EIP Process -The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks: +The following is the full, default standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks. The diagram shows all of the stages a document can be in and the transitions between those states. ![EIP Status Diagram](../assets/eip-1/EIP-process-update.jpg) -**Idea** - An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository. +***For Working Groups only Draft, Final, and Withdrawn are used in the Preamble as a `status`. While a document is a Draft the working group is responsible for its process, which the group can track as `working-group-status`.*** + +All other proposals can move through all stages of this process. + +#### Idea + +An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository. + +#### Draft + +Draft is the first formally tracked stage of an EIP in development. An EIP is merged by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when it meets some initial requirements: it should be technically sound, the title and preamble must be complete and descriptive, and required sections must be present and readable (but not necessarily complete.) Problems with language like spelling, grammar, etc. are only considered warnings. -**Draft** - The first formally tracked stage of an EIP in development. An EIP is merged by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when properly formatted. +The specification itself does not need to be completely fleshed out, but should contain enough content to give a good idea of the intent of the proposal. Importantly, the proposal must actually be a proposal to improve Ethereum. -**Review** - An EIP Author marks an EIP as ready for and requesting Peer Review. +#### Review -**Last Call** - This is the final review window for an EIP before moving to `Final`. An EIP editor will assign `Last Call` status and set a review end date (`last-call-deadline`), typically 14 days later. +An EIP Author marks an EIP as ready for and requesting Peer Review. An Editor will merge the EIP when it meets all EIP requirements: it should be a technically sound, complete specification, properly formatted, with correct language, markup and external references. -If this period results in necessary normative changes it will revert the EIP to `Review`. +#### Last Call -**Final** - This EIP represents the final standard. A Final EIP exists in a state of finality and should only be updated to correct errata and add non-normative clarifications. +This is the final review window for an EIP before moving to `Final`. An EIP Author may request `Last Call` status and set a review end date (`last-call-deadline`), typically 14 days later. + +*If this period results in necessary normative changes it will revert the EIP to `Review`.* + +#### Final + +This EIP represents the final standard. A Final EIP exists in a state of finality and should only be updated to correct errata and add non-normative clarifications. A PR moving an EIP from Last Call to Final SHOULD contain no changes other than the status update. Any content or editorial proposed change SHOULD be separate from this status-updating PR and committed prior to it. -**Stagnant** - Any EIP in `Draft` or `Review` or `Last Call` if inactive for a period of 6 months or greater is moved to `Stagnant`. An EIP may be resurrected from this state by Authors or EIP Editors through moving it back to `Draft` or it's earlier status. If not resurrected, a proposal may stay forever in this status. +#### Stagnant + +Any EIP in `Draft` or `Review` or `Last Call` if inactive for a period of 6 months or greater is moved to `Stagnant`. An EIP may be resurrected from this state by Authors or EIP Editors through moving it back to `Draft` or its earlier status. If not resurrected, a proposal may stay forever in this status. + +*EIP Authors are notified of any algorithmic change to the status of their EIP* ->*EIP Authors are notified of any algorithmic change to the status of their EIP* +#### Withdrawn -**Withdrawn** - The EIP Author(s) have withdrawn the proposed EIP. This state has finality and can no longer be resurrected using this EIP number. If the idea is pursued at later date it is considered a new proposal. +The EIP Author(s) have withdrawn the proposed EIP. This state has finality and can no longer be resurrected using this EIP number. If the idea is pursued at later date it is considered a new proposal. -**Living** - A special status for EIPs that are designed to be continually updated and not reach a state of finality. This includes most notably EIP-1. +#### Living + +A special status for EIPs that are designed to be continually updated and not reach a state of finality. This includes most notably EIP-1. + +### Technical Peers + +Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers for technical soundness, but the EIP Editors may still lack relevant expertise. And the numerous ERCs cover a wide and growing range of applications that are even more likely to be outside the expertise of any Editor. Historically, this has put a strain on the Editors' responsibility to maintain quality. Therefore, the Editors *at their discretion* may designate Technical Peers with the relevant expertise who can work with the Author to ensure a technically sound proposal. ## What belongs in a successful EIP? -Each EIP should have the following parts: +### EIP Sections + +*Note that Working Group EIPs may have additional sections at the WG's discretion, as may any EIP at the Editors' discretion.* -- Preamble - RFC 822 style headers containing metadata about the EIP, including the EIP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), a description (limited to a maximum of 140 characters), and the author details. Irrespective of the category, the title and description should not include EIP number. See [below](./eip-1.md#eip-header-preamble) for details. -- Abstract - 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. -- Motivation *(optional)* - A motivation section is critical for EIPs that want to change the Ethereum protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the EIP solves. This section may be omitted if the motivation is evident. -- 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 platforms (besu, erigon, ethereumjs, go-ethereum, nethermind, or others). -- 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 discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion around the EIP. -- Backwards Compatibility *(optional)* - All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their consequences. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. This section may be omitted if the proposal does not introduce any backwards incompatibilities, but this section must be included if backward incompatibilities exist. -- Test Cases *(optional)* - Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Tests should either be inlined in the EIP as data (such as input/expected output pairs, or included in `../assets/eip-###/`. This section may be omitted for non-Core proposals. -- Reference Implementation *(optional)* - An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to assist in understanding or implementing this specification. This section may be omitted for all EIPs. -- Security Considerations - All EIPs 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. EIP submissions missing the "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. An EIP cannot proceed to status "Final" without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers. -- Copyright Waiver - All EIPs must be in the public domain. The copyright waiver MUST link to the license file and use the following wording: `Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE.md).` +Each EIP should have the following sections: -## EIP Formats and Templates +#### Preamble + +RFC 822 style headers containing metadata about the EIP, including the EIP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), a description (limited to a maximum of 140 characters), and the author details. Irrespective of the category, the title and description should not include the EIP number. See [below](#eip-header-preamble) for details. + +#### Abstract + +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. + +#### Motivation + +This section is optional. + +A motivation section is critical for EIPs that want to change the Ethereum protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the EIP solves. This section may be omitted if the motivation is evident. + +#### 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 platforms (besu, erigon, ethereumjs, go-ethereum, nethermind, or others). + +Working groups MAY specify additional requirements, including on the form of the Specification and the implementation of the technology. + +#### Rationale + +This section is optional. + +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 discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion around the EIP. + +#### Backwards Compatibility + +This section is optional for all EIPs except those with a status of `Last Call` or `Final`. + +All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their consequences. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. This section may be omitted if the proposal does not introduce any backwards incompatibilities, but this section must be included if backward incompatibilities exist. + +#### Test Cases + +This section is optional for all non-Core EIPs. + +Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Tests should either be inlined in the EIP as data (such as input/expected output pairs, or included in `../assets/eip-###/`. This section may be omitted for non-Core proposals. + +#### Reference Implementation + +This section is optional. + +An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to assist in understanding or implementing this specification. This section may be omitted for many EIPs. Most ERCs should include an implementation. Final Core EIPs should link to the relevant Execution Client or Consensus Client commits that implement the EIP. + +#### Security Considerations + +All EIPs 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. EIP submissions missing the "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. An EIP cannot proceed to status "Final" without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers. + +#### References + +This section is optional if there are no references. + +Complete references for each external resource must be included in this section, as specified below. + +#### Copyright Waiver + +All EIPs must be in the public domain. The copyright waiver MUST link to the license file and use the following wording: `Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE.md).` + +### EIP Formats and Templates EIPs should be written in [markdown](https://github.com/adam-p/markdown-here/wiki/Markdown-Cheatsheet) format. There is a [template](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/eip-template.md) to follow. -## EIP Header Preamble +### EIP Header Preamble Each EIP must begin with an [RFC 822](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt) style header preamble, preceded and followed by three hyphens (`---`). This header is also termed ["front matter" by Jekyll](https://jekyllrb.com/docs/front-matter/). The headers must appear in the following order. @@ -130,23 +241,31 @@ Each EIP must begin with an [RFC 822](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt) style `status`: *Draft, Review, Last Call, Final, Stagnant, Withdrawn, Living* -`last-call-deadline`: *The date last call period ends on* (Optional field, only needed when status is `Last Call`) +`last-call-deadline`: *The date last call period ends on* — This header is only needed when the status is `Last Call`. `type`: *One of `Standards Track`, `Meta`, or `Informational`* -`category`: *One of `Core`, `Networking`, `Interface`, or `ERC`* (Optional field, only needed for `Standards Track` EIPs) +`category`: *One of `Core`, `Networking`, `Interface`, or `ERC`* — This header is only needed for `Standards Track` EIPs. `created`: *Date the EIP was created on* -`requires`: *EIP number(s)* (Optional field) +`requires`: *EIP number(s)* — This header is optional. + +`withdrawal-reason`: *A sentence explaining why the EIP was withdrawn* — This header is only needed when the status is `Withdrawn`. + +`working-draft`: *A link to the working draft of this EIP* — This header is not needed if the draft is under etherem/EIP/EIPs. + +`working-group`: *The name of the Working Group* — This header is only needed when a Working Group is responsible for this EIP. + +`working-group-status`: *The status of this EIP in the Working Group workflow* — This header is optional, and only for use by the responsible Working Group. -`withdrawal-reason`: *A sentence explaining why the EIP was withdrawn.* (Optional field, only needed when status is `Withdrawn`) +Working Groups can introduce their own headers, which should come last. Headers that permit lists must separate elements with commas. Headers requiring dates will always do so in the format of ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd). -### `author` header +#### `author` header The `author` header lists the names, email addresses or usernames of the authors/owners of the EIP. Those who prefer anonymity may use a username only, or a first name and a username. The format of the `author` header value must be: @@ -168,37 +287,45 @@ if neither the email address nor the GitHub username are given. At least one author must use a GitHub username, in order to get notified on change requests and have the capability to approve or reject them. -### `discussions-to` header +#### `discussions-to` header While an EIP is a draft, a `discussions-to` header will indicate the URL where the EIP is being discussed. The preferred discussion URL is a topic on [Ethereum Magicians](https://ethereum-magicians.org/). The URL cannot point to Github pull requests, any URL which is ephemeral, and any URL which can get locked over time (i.e. Reddit topics). -### `type` header +#### `type` header The `type` header specifies the type of EIP: Standards Track, Meta, or Informational. If the track is Standards please include the subcategory (core, networking, interface, or ERC). -### `category` header +#### `category` header The `category` header specifies the EIP's category. This is required for standards-track EIPs only. -### `created` header +#### `created` header The `created` header records the date that the EIP was assigned a number. Both headers should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14. -### `requires` header +#### `requires` header EIPs may have a `requires` header, indicating the EIP numbers that this EIP depends on. If such a dependency exists, this field is required. A `requires` dependency is created when the current EIP cannot be understood or implemented without a concept or technical element from another EIP. Merely mentioning another EIP does not necessarily create such a dependency. -## Linking to External Resources +### Linking to External Resources Other than the specific exceptions listed below, links to external resources **SHOULD NOT** be included. External resources may disappear, move, or change unexpectedly. The process governing permitted external resources is described in [EIP-5757](./eip-5757.md). -### Execution Client Specifications +External resources not so permitted **MAY** be included *at the Editors' or Working Groups' discretion*. + +A complete reference to every external resource **MUST** be included in the References section. + +We take several precautions to ensure the continued accessibility of all external resources. First, following [RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html), references **MUST** be full citations, including author(s), title, and publication information; URLs are acceptable, but **SHOULD NOT** be the sole information provided for a reference. In addition, Links **SHOULD** meet the Requirements for Origins in [EIP-5757](./eip-5757.md), and a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), where available, **MUST** be included. Within "fair use", short quotations from referenced works are encouraged, as embedded quotations will not change or disappear. + +According to the IESG Statement on [Normative and Informative References](https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/), Normative references "specify documents that must be read to understand or implement the technology" whereas an Informative reference "only provides additional information". The Specification section of an EIP **MUST NOT** contain Informative references, and **SHOULD** contain all necessary Normative references. Motivation and Rationale sections **MAY** include Informative references. + +#### Execution Client Specifications Links to the Ethereum Execution Client Specifications may be included using normal markdown syntax, such as: @@ -216,7 +343,7 @@ Permitted Execution Client Specifications URLs must anchor to a specific commit, ^(https://github.com/ethereum/execution-specs/(blob|commit)/[0-9a-f]{40}/.*|https://github.com/ethereum/execution-specs/tree/[0-9a-f]{40}/.*)$ ``` -### Consensus Layer Specifications +#### Consensus Layer Specifications Links to specific commits of files within the Ethereum Consensus Layer Specifications may be included using normal markdown syntax, such as: @@ -234,7 +361,7 @@ Permitted Consensus Layer Specifications URLs must anchor to a specific commit, ^https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/(blob|commit)/[0-9a-f]{40}/.*$ ``` -### Networking Specifications +#### Networking Specifications Links to specific commits of files within the Ethereum Networking Specifications may be included using normal markdown syntax, such as: @@ -252,7 +379,7 @@ Permitted Networking Specifications URLs must anchor to a specific commit, and s ^https://github.com/ethereum/devp2p/(blob|commit)/[0-9a-f]{40}/.*$ ``` -### World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) +#### World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Links to a W3C "Recommendation" status specification may be included using normal markdown syntax. For example, the following link would be allowed: @@ -270,7 +397,7 @@ Permitted W3C recommendation URLs MUST anchor to a specification in the technica ^https://www\.w3\.org/TR/[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]/.*$ ``` -### Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) +#### Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) Links to WHATWG specifications may be included using normal markdown syntax, such as: @@ -290,7 +417,7 @@ Permitted WHATWG specification URLs must anchor to a specification defined in th Although not recommended by WHATWG, EIPs must anchor to a particular commit so that future readers can refer to the exact version of the living standard that existed at the time the EIP was finalized. This gives readers sufficient information to maintain compatibility, if they so choose, with the version referenced by the EIP and the current living standard. -### Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) +#### Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Links to an IETF Request For Comment (RFC) specification may be included using normal markdown syntax, such as: @@ -308,7 +435,7 @@ Permitted IETF specification URLs MUST anchor to a specification with an assigne ^https:\/\/www.rfc-editor.org\/rfc\/.*$ ``` -### Bitcoin Improvement Proposal +#### Bitcoin Improvement Proposal Links to Bitcoin Improvement Proposals may be included using normal markdown syntax, such as: @@ -326,7 +453,7 @@ Permitted Bitcoin Improvement Proposal URLs must anchor to a specific commit, an ^(https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/[0-9a-f]{40}/bip-[0-9]+\.mediawiki)$ ``` -### Digital Object Identifier System +#### Digital Object Identifier System Links qualified with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) may be included using the following syntax: @@ -363,8 +490,8 @@ This is a sentence with a footnote.[^1] Which renders to: - - + + This is a sentence with a footnote.[^1] @@ -395,17 +522,17 @@ This is a sentence with a footnote.[^1] } ``` - + See the [Citation Style Language Schema](https://resource.citationstyles.org/schema/v1.0/input/json/csl-data.json) for the supported fields. In addition to passing validation against that schema, references must include a DOI and at least one URL. The top-level URL field must resolve to a copy of the referenced document which can be viewed at zero cost. Values under `additional-urls` must also resolve to a copy of the referenced document, but may charge a fee. -## Linking to other EIPs +#### Linking to other EIPs References to other EIPs should follow the format `EIP-N` where `N` is the EIP number you are referring to. Each EIP that is referenced in an EIP **MUST** be accompanied by a relative markdown link the first time it is referenced, and **MAY** be accompanied by a link on subsequent references. The link **MUST** always be done via relative paths so that the links work in this GitHub repository, forks of this repository, the main EIPs site, mirrors of the main EIP site, etc. For example, you would link to this EIP as `./eip-1.md`. -## Auxiliary Files +### Auxiliary Files Images, diagrams and auxiliary files should be included in a subdirectory of the `assets` folder for that EIP as follows: `assets/eip-N` (where **N** is to be replaced with the EIP number). When linking to an image in the EIP, use relative links such as `../assets/eip-1/image.png`. @@ -419,23 +546,23 @@ If you are interested in assuming ownership of an EIP, send a message asking to The current EIP editors are -- Alex Beregszaszi (@axic) -- Gavin John (@Pandapip1) -- Greg Colvin (@gcolvin) -- Matt Garnett (@lightclient) -- Sam Wilson (@SamWilsn) -- Zainan Victor Zhou (@xinbenlv) -- Gajinder Singh (@g11tech) +* Alex Beregszaszi (@axic) +* Gavin John (@Pandapip1) +* Greg Colvin (@gcolvin) +* Matt Garnett (@lightclient) +* Sam Wilson (@SamWilsn) +* Zainan Victor Zhou (@xinbenlv) +* Gajinder Singh (@g11tech) Emeritus EIP editors are -- Casey Detrio (@cdetrio) -- Hudson Jameson (@Souptacular) -- Martin Becze (@wanderer) -- Micah Zoltu (@MicahZoltu) -- Nick Johnson (@arachnid) -- Nick Savers (@nicksavers) -- Vitalik Buterin (@vbuterin) +* Casey Detrio (@cdetrio) +* Hudson Jameson (@Souptacular) +* Martin Becze (@wanderer) +* Micah Zoltu (@MicahZoltu) +* Nick Johnson (@arachnid) +* Nick Savers (@nicksavers) +* Vitalik Buterin (@vbuterin) If you would like to become an EIP editor, please check [EIP-5069](./eip-5069.md). @@ -443,17 +570,17 @@ If you would like to become an EIP editor, please check [EIP-5069](./eip-5069.md For each new EIP that comes in, an editor does the following: -- Read the EIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to get to final status. -- The title should accurately describe the content. -- Check the EIP for language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.), markup (GitHub flavored Markdown), code style +* Read the EIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to get to final status. +* The title should accurately describe the content. +* Check the EIP for language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.), markup (GitHub flavored Markdown), code style -If the EIP isn't ready, the editor will send it back to the author for revision, with specific instructions. +If the EIP isn't ready, the editor will send it back to the author with instructions for revision and possibly a request for review by Technical Peers. Once the EIP is ready for the repository, the EIP editor will: -- Assign an EIP number (generally the PR number, but the decision is with the editors) -- Merge the corresponding [pull request](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pulls) -- Send a message back to the EIP author with the next step. +* Assign an EIP number (generally the PR number, but the decision is with the editors) +* Merge the corresponding [pull request](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pulls) +* Send a message back to the EIP author with the next step. Many EIPs are written and maintained by developers with write access to the Ethereum codebase. The EIP editors monitor EIP changes, and correct any structure, grammar, spelling, or markup mistakes we see. @@ -465,15 +592,15 @@ The editors don't pass judgment on EIPs. We merely do the administrative & edito The `title` field in the preamble: -- Should not include the word "standard" or any variation thereof; and -- Should not include the EIP's number. +* Should not include the word "standard" or any variation thereof; and +* Should not include the EIP's number. ### Descriptions The `description` field in the preamble: -- Should not include the word "standard" or any variation thereof; and -- Should not include the EIP's number. +* Should not include the word "standard" or any variation thereof; and +* Should not include the EIP's number. ### EIP numbers