From d500f9c60e4bf58979e9f5f24d6c9eafb2ac09b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 01:54:14 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 01/41] pain relief --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index e55c0351830a1e..c8819b69a55795 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@ ---- eip: 1 title: EIP Purpose and Guidelines status: Living @@ -67,33 +66,28 @@ 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: ![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. - -**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. - -**Review** - An EIP Author marks an EIP as ready for and requesting Peer 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. - -If this period results in necessary normative changes it will revert the EIP to `Review`. +* Idea - An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository. +* Draft - The first formally tracked stage of an EIP in development. An EIP is merged by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when it is formatted to a minimal standard, with spelling errors, link formats, and similar problems reported only as warnings. +* Review - An EIP Author marks an EIP as ready for and requesting Peer Review. An Editor will merge the EIP when it meets all formatting requirements, including corect spelling and resolved links. +* 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. + * 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. + * *EIP Authors are notified of any algorithmic change to the status of their EIP* +* 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. +* 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. -**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. +### ERC Peers -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. - ->*EIP Authors are notified of any algorithmic change to the status of their EIP* - -**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. - -**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. +Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers and EIP Editors are generally familiar with the Ethereum protocol, whereas ERCs cover a wide and growing range of applications and are often outside the expertise of any Editor. Historically, this has put a strain on the Editors' responsibility to maintain quality. Therefore, an ERC Author should, with the help of the Editors, designate at least two Peers with relevant expertise who can assist the Author refine the Idea technically, edit Drafts, and generally support the Author through the stages of the EIP Process. ## What belongs in a successful EIP? @@ -110,11 +104,11 @@ Each EIP should have the following parts: - 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).` -## EIP Formats and Templates +### 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. @@ -146,7 +140,7 @@ 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 +162,41 @@ 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 references not so permitted **MAY** be included at the Editors' discretion. We take several precautions to help ensure their continued accessibility. We follow [RFC 7322](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html) in requiring that outside references **MUST** be full citations, including author(s), title, publication information, and if available, a version number or other id. Links are acceptable, but **MUST NOT** be the sole information provided for a reference. Links **SHOULD** meet the Requirements for Origins of EIP-5757, and a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), where available, **MUST** be included. Within "fair use", relevant quotations from referenced works are encouraged, as the quote itself will not change. + +Following 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. At the discretion of the Editors, Motivation and Rationale sections **MAY** include important Informative references -- these should be rare. + +#### Execution Client Specifications Links to the Ethereum Execution Client Specifications may be included using normal markdown syntax, such as: @@ -216,7 +214,7 @@ 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 +232,7 @@ 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 +250,7 @@ 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 +268,7 @@ 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 +288,7 @@ 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 +306,7 @@ 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 +324,7 @@ 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: @@ -401,11 +399,11 @@ See the [Citation Style Language Schema](https://resource.citationstyles.org/sch 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`. From 4d3fb7fe6ab7ee92b9a810465c7701fd1b79fdae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 01:57:24 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 02/41] header --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index c8819b69a55795..2eff2a8314683b 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +--- eip: 1 title: EIP Purpose and Guidelines status: Living From 62f0533e92aabf4f6274f46c4c4bb52ee9326e30 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 02:59:22 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 03/41] list formatting --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 2eff2a8314683b..1ef54256a09a03 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ ---- +[--- eip: 1 title: EIP Purpose and Guidelines status: Living @@ -491,3 +491,4 @@ This document was derived heavily from [Bitcoin's BIP-0001](https://github.com/b ## Copyright Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE.md). +](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/7230)https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/7230 From 46b1ea8328e5812b7535d1f4082dc5ca9edc9412 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 03:08:32 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 04/41] Update eip-1.md --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 1ef54256a09a03..14e2bf0429f567 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -[--- +--- eip: 1 title: EIP Purpose and Guidelines status: Living @@ -74,17 +74,17 @@ The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks: ![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. -* Draft - The first formally tracked stage of an EIP in development. An EIP is merged by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when it is formatted to a minimal standard, with spelling errors, link formats, and similar problems reported only as warnings. -* Review - An EIP Author marks an EIP as ready for and requesting Peer Review. An Editor will merge the EIP when it meets all formatting requirements, including corect spelling and resolved links. -* 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. - * 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. - * *EIP Authors are notified of any algorithmic change to the status of their EIP* -* 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. -* 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. +- **Idea** - An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository. +- **Draft** - The first formally tracked stage of an EIP in development. An EIP is merged by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when it is formatted to a minimal standard, with spelling errors, link formats, and similar problems reported only as warnings. +- **Review** - An EIP Author marks an EIP as ready for and requesting Peer Review. An Editor will merge the EIP when it meets all formatting requirements, including corect spelling and resolved links. +- **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. + - 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. + - *EIP Authors are notified of any algorithmic change to the status of their EIP* +- **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. +- **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. ### ERC Peers @@ -94,16 +94,16 @@ Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers and Each EIP should have the following parts: -- 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).` +- **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).` ### EIP Formats and Templates @@ -491,4 +491,4 @@ This document was derived heavily from [Bitcoin's BIP-0001](https://github.com/b ## Copyright Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE.md). -](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/7230)https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/7230 +](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/7230) From f67fbd1db8e7bb3981cde18920778a91cbc373a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 06:11:31 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 05/41] tweeks --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 14e2bf0429f567..7b64facb3f605c 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks: ### ERC Peers -Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers and EIP Editors are generally familiar with the Ethereum protocol, whereas ERCs cover a wide and growing range of applications and are often outside the expertise of any Editor. Historically, this has put a strain on the Editors' responsibility to maintain quality. Therefore, an ERC Author should, with the help of the Editors, designate at least two Peers with relevant expertise who can assist the Author refine the Idea technically, edit Drafts, and generally support the Author through the stages of the EIP Process. +Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other develoapers and EIP Editors are generally familiar with the Ethereum protocol, whereas ERCs cover a wide and growing range of applications and are often outside the expertise of any Editor. Historically, this has put a strain on the Editors' responsibility to maintain quality. Therefore, an ERC Author should, with the help of the Editors, designate at least two Peers with relevant expertise who can help the Author refine the Idea technically, edit Drafts, and generally support the Author through the stages of the EIP Process. ## What belongs in a successful EIP? @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ Each EIP should have the following parts: - **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. +- **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).` ### EIP Formats and Templates From 68874098ade00f15618a0e3a3c26c794bae7b6fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 17:36:19 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 06/41] Add Reference sections --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 16 +++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 7b64facb3f605c..9b928dd0f61d19 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -75,8 +75,8 @@ The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks: ![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. -- **Draft** - The first formally tracked stage of an EIP in development. An EIP is merged by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when it is formatted to a minimal standard, with spelling errors, link formats, and similar problems reported only as warnings. -- **Review** - An EIP Author marks an EIP as ready for and requesting Peer Review. An Editor will merge the EIP when it meets all formatting requirements, including corect spelling and resolved links. +- **Draft** - 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 correct, and all included Sections should be readable. Problems with language like spelling, grammar, markup, etc. are only considered warnings. +- **Review** - 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. - **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. - 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. @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks: ### ERC Peers -Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other develoapers and EIP Editors are generally familiar with the Ethereum protocol, whereas ERCs cover a wide and growing range of applications and are often outside the expertise of any Editor. Historically, this has put a strain on the Editors' responsibility to maintain quality. Therefore, an ERC Author should, with the help of the Editors, designate at least two Peers with relevant expertise who can help the Author refine the Idea technically, edit Drafts, and generally support the Author through the stages of the EIP Process. +Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers and EIP Editors are generally familiar with the Ethereum protocol, whereas ERCs cover a wide and growing range of applications and are often outside the expertise of any Editor. Historically, this has put a strain on the Editors' responsibility to maintain quality. Therefore, an ERC Author should, with the help of the Editors, designate at least two Peers with relevant expertise who can help the Author refine the Idea technically, edit Drafts, and generally support the Author through the stages of the EIP Process. ## What belongs in a successful EIP? @@ -103,6 +103,8 @@ Each EIP should have the following parts: - **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. +- **Normative References** +- **Informative References** - Complete references for all external resources must be included in these two sections, 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 @@ -193,9 +195,13 @@ Other than the specific exceptions listed below, links to external resources **S The process governing permitted external resources is described in [EIP-5757](./eip-5757.md). -External references not so permitted **MAY** be included at the Editors' discretion. We take several precautions to help ensure their continued accessibility. We follow [RFC 7322](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html) in requiring that outside references **MUST** be full citations, including author(s), title, publication information, and if available, a version number or other id. Links are acceptable, but **MUST NOT** be the sole information provided for a reference. Links **SHOULD** meet the Requirements for Origins of EIP-5757, and a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), where available, **MUST** be included. Within "fair use", relevant quotations from referenced works are encouraged, as the quote itself will not change. +External resources not so permitted **MAY** be included *at the Editors' discretion*. -Following 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. At the discretion of the Editors, Motivation and Rationale sections **MAY** include important Informative references -- these should be rare. +A complete reference to every external resource **MUST** be included in a Normative or Informative References section. + +We take several precautions to help ensure the continued accessibility of all external resources. We follow the requirements of the [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 **MUST 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", relevant quotations from referenced works are encouraged, as embedded quotations will not change. + +Following 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 important Informative references -- these should be rare. #### Execution Client Specifications From 7959fb6b5fb4f46f18ee5ac3260bf7c7eb3be33a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 01:59:08 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 07/41] Tweeking and Trchnical Assistants --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 9b928dd0f61d19..a81407fb5062ce 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -86,9 +86,9 @@ The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks: - **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. - **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. -### ERC Peers +### Technical Assistants -Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers and EIP Editors are generally familiar with the Ethereum protocol, whereas ERCs cover a wide and growing range of applications and are often outside the expertise of any Editor. Historically, this has put a strain on the Editors' responsibility to maintain quality. Therefore, an ERC Author should, with the help of the Editors, designate at least two Peers with relevant expertise who can help the Author refine the Idea technically, edit Drafts, and generally support the Author through the stages of the EIP Process. +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 require Technical Assistants with the relevant expertise who can review the Author's Idea and work with the Author to ensure a technically sound proposal. ## What belongs in a successful EIP? @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ Each EIP should have the following parts: - **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. +- **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 most EIPs. 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. - **Normative References** - **Informative References** - Complete references for all external resources must be included in these two sections, as specified below. @@ -195,13 +195,13 @@ Other than the specific exceptions listed below, links to external resources **S The process governing permitted external resources is described in [EIP-5757](./eip-5757.md). -External resources not so permitted **MAY** be included *at the Editors' discretion*. +External resources not so permitted **MAY** be included ***at the Editors' discretion***. A complete reference to every external resource **MUST** be included in a Normative or Informative References section. -We take several precautions to help ensure the continued accessibility of all external resources. We follow the requirements of the [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 **MUST 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", relevant quotations from referenced works are encouraged, as embedded quotations will not change. +We take several precautions to ensure the continued accessibility of all external resources. First, we follow the requirements of the [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 **MUST 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. -Following 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 important Informative references -- these should be rare. +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 -- these should be rare. #### Execution Client Specifications From f4de757b10bbc57baca6bda6e185eef8295016cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 02:31:54 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 08/41] Mostly formatting --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index a81407fb5062ce..f26d67a8499e7b 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -19,17 +19,37 @@ 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 warranted) an update to the [formal specification](https://github.com/ethereum/yellowpaper). Furthermore, Standards Track EIPs can be broken down into the following categories: -- 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. @@ -74,17 +94,42 @@ The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks: ![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. -- **Draft** - 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 correct, and all included Sections should be readable. Problems with language like spelling, grammar, markup, etc. are only considered warnings. -- **Review** - 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. -- **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. +#### Idea + +An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository. + +#### Draft + +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 correct, and all included Sections should be readable. Problems with language like spelling, grammar, markup, etc. are only considered warnings. + +#### Review + +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. + +#### 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. - 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. - - *EIP Authors are notified of any algorithmic change to the status of their EIP* -- **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. -- **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. + +#### 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. + +*EIP Authors are notified of any algorithmic change to the status of their EIP* + +#### 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. + +#### 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 Assistants @@ -92,20 +137,32 @@ Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers for ## What belongs in a successful EIP? -Each EIP should have the following parts: - -- **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 most EIPs. 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. -- **Normative References** -- **Informative References** - Complete references for all external resources must be included in these two sections, 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 Sections + +Each EIP should have the following sectio: + +#### 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 most EIPs. 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. + +#### Normative References** + **Informative References** - Complete references for all external resources must be included in these two sections, 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 From 4f57eccfe4a6b12fb74821c76588320c22ddf0c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:51:56 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 09/41] farewell yellow paper Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com> --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index f26d67a8499e7b..bff682f9571856 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ There are three types of EIP: Standards Track, Meta and Informational. ### 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: +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/execution-specs). Furthermore, Standards Track EIPs can be broken down into the following categories: #### Core From 407e2eb074d5dc2589ad63735e50df9c7ffa292b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 15:08:49 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 10/41] link format Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com> --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index bff682f9571856..08193bf5dd826e 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -554,4 +554,3 @@ This document was derived heavily from [Bitcoin's BIP-0001](https://github.com/b ## Copyright Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE.md). -](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/7230) From 5ec1a7d0495f206cdca30122cba0a159cd443d74 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 15:09:29 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 11/41] typo Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com> --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 08193bf5dd826e..dcbec3411ed666 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers for ### EIP Sections -Each EIP should have the following sectio: +Each EIP should have the following sections: #### 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. From a0b0c6cb6a2be1127e3cd6126f020b92bf8a2df8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 15:21:52 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 12/41] typo --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index dcbec3411ed666..af056fa6457d69 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -23,12 +23,12 @@ There are three types of EIP: Standards Track, Meta and Informational. ### 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/execution-specs). Furthermore, Standards Track EIPs can be broken down into the following categories: +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/execution-specs). Furthermore, Standards Track EIPs can be broken down into Core, Networking, Interface, and ERC. #### 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). From a39adeaec52fe64517dc579f1f3013ce0a164a25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 18:04:59 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 13/41] Fix more formatting --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index af056fa6457d69..1cd99189fb6673 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ An EIP Author marks an EIP as ready for and requesting Peer Review. An Editor w #### 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. - - If this period results in necessary normative changes it will revert the EIP to `Review`. + +*If this period results in necessary normative changes it will revert the EIP to `Review`.* #### Final @@ -141,28 +142,50 @@ Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers for Each EIP should have the following sections: -#### 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. +#### 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 + +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. -#### 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. +#### Test Cases *(optional)* -#### 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. +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. -#### 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). +#### Reference Implementation *(optional)* -#### 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. +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 most EIPs. Final Core EIPs should link to the relevant Execution Client or Consensus Client commits that implement 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. +#### Security Considerations -#### 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. +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. -#### 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 most EIPs. Final Core EIPs should link to the relevant Execution Client or Consensus Client commits that implement the EIP. +#### Normative References +#### Informative References -#### 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. +Complete references for all external resources must be included in one of these two sections, as specified below. -#### Normative References** - **Informative References** - Complete references for all external resources must be included in these two sections, as specified below. +#### Copyright Waiver -#### 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).` +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 From 9756f63bea70b3bd6f97bcfd155165e6ed6b48d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 14:14:39 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 14/41] tweeks --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 1cd99189fb6673..ec18cbeca24370 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -179,9 +179,10 @@ An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people 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. #### Normative References -#### Informative References -Complete references for all external resources must be included in one of these two sections, as specified below. +**Informative References** + +Complete references for each external resource must be included in one of these two sections, as specified below. #### Copyright Waiver @@ -275,13 +276,13 @@ Other than the specific exceptions listed below, links to external resources **S The process governing permitted external resources is described in [EIP-5757](./eip-5757.md). -External resources not so permitted **MAY** be included ***at the Editors' discretion***. +External resources not so permitted **MAY** be included *at the Editors' discretion*. A complete reference to every external resource **MUST** be included in a Normative or Informative References section. We take several precautions to ensure the continued accessibility of all external resources. First, we follow the requirements of the [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 **MUST 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. -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 -- these should be rare. +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 From e13cead7d711a2c43ae9dc9cf57d566d736e680c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 22:09:47 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 15/41] peers and code --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index ec18cbeca24370..bc19fb5eb6aa51 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -132,9 +132,9 @@ The EIP Author(s) have withdrawn the proposed EIP. This state has finality and c 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 Assistants +### 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 require Technical Assistants with the relevant expertise who can review the Author's Idea and work with the Author to ensure a technically sound proposal. +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 require Technical Peers with the relevant expertise who can review the Author's Idea and work with the Author to ensure a technically sound proposal. ## What belongs in a successful EIP? @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting conse #### 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 most EIPs. Final Core EIPs should link to the relevant Execution Client or Consensus Client commits that implement the EIP. +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 @@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ For each new EIP that comes in, an editor does the following: - 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 for revision, with specific instructions and possibly a request for review by Technical Peers. Once the EIP is ready for the repository, the EIP editor will: From 7f73b1986e42add2699e333b66bfc53126ecb5d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 23:11:31 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 16/41] Update eip-1.md --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index bc19fb5eb6aa51..d0510ae614d06b 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository. #### Draft -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 correct, and all included Sections should be readable. Problems with language like spelling, grammar, markup, etc. are only considered warnings. +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. #### Review From a01570e1896072413b061be1d73e823135d4f11d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 23:14:54 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 17/41] Update EIPS/eip-1.md Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com> --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index d0510ae614d06b..34316d49a47649 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ A PR moving an EIP from Last Call to Final SHOULD contain no changes other than #### 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. +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* From c0d4bebe20d04a4dd82f95527cfe9f56cb585069 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 23:44:38 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 18/41] Update eip-1.md --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 34316d49a47649..74f5dede19b489 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -100,8 +100,9 @@ An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository. #### Draft -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 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. +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 be a good fit for the EIP process, as defined by the EIP Editors. #### Review 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. From ed07f515ff2c47625491e78e1599b2bee34321d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 23:45:57 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 19/41] Update eip-1.md --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 74f5dede19b489..d92dbf781fd334 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ 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 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. 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 be a good fit for the EIP process, as defined by the EIP Editors. #### Review From 426d5e1cec6c582f3f1814ce4ad8435599a891b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 23:52:01 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 20/41] Update eip-1.md --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index d92dbf781fd334..cbded387ad77dc 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -102,7 +102,8 @@ An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository. 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. -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 be a good fit for the EIP process, as defined by the EIP Editors. +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. 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. From aaaf616d761a729a99037c1b1662359fe5fef0c6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 13:55:31 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 21/41] Update EIPS/eip-1.md Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com> --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index cbded387ad77dc..4f0e71f9aa34da 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -180,7 +180,9 @@ An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people 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. -#### Normative References +#### References + +**Normative References** **Informative References** From f1906d7d2d2b48755a41ac0a1bffba0f69de3d03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 14:39:11 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 22/41] Update EIPS/eip-1.md Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com> --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 4f0e71f9aa34da..f5f77913f3775c 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ An EIP Author marks an EIP as ready for and requesting Peer Review. An Editor w #### 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. +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`.* From 127abbb67e7d14d637c16e1b9ae8299252edc094 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 17:33:08 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 23/41] Separate core devs' responsibilities from editors' --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 26 +++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index f5f77913f3775c..2161db86298bff 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -75,7 +75,13 @@ Once the idea has been vetted, your next responsibility will be to present (by m ### 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. +*Core EIPs are the responsibility of the Core Developers.* The Editors treat them as an independent Working Group, and therefore act primarilily as publishers. + +As such, we don't specify very much about the format of the document -- e.g. required sections, notations, references, etc. -- or the associated workflow. Our job is to accept proposals as Drafts, keep them under source control, and work with the authors to ensure that Final EIPs meet the standards of style and usage laid out here. + +Editorially, a **Final EIP** must be just that: "in a state of finality." For Core EIPs that happens when they actually go live on the Ethereum mainnet -- after that the network can't be changed without another fork. + +So 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. 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). @@ -90,10 +96,12 @@ These calls generally result in a "rough consensus" around what EIPs should be i ### EIP Process -The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks: +The following is the overall standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks. The diagram shows all of the states a document can be in and the transitions beteen those states. ![EIP Status Diagram](../assets/eip-1/EIP-process-update.jpg) +*Note: For Core EIPs only Draft, Withdrawn, and Final are used. In between them, the Core Developers are responsible for their own process.* + #### Idea An idea that is pre-draft. This is not tracked within the EIP Repository. @@ -142,6 +150,8 @@ Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers for ### EIP Sections +*Note that Core EIPs may have additional sections at the Core WG's discretion, as may any EIP at the Editors' discretion.* + Each EIP should have the following sections: #### Preamble @@ -160,7 +170,7 @@ A motivation section is critical for EIPs that want to change the Ethereum proto 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 +#### Rationale *(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. @@ -182,11 +192,7 @@ All EIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/conside #### References -**Normative References** - -**Informative References** - -Complete references for each external resource must be included in one of these two sections, as specified below. +Complete references for each external resource must be included in this section, as specified below. #### Copyright Waiver @@ -224,6 +230,8 @@ Each EIP must begin with an [RFC 822](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt) style `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). @@ -282,7 +290,7 @@ The process governing permitted external resources is described in [EIP-5757](./ External resources not so permitted **MAY** be included *at the Editors' discretion*. -A complete reference to every external resource **MUST** be included in a Normative or Informative References section. +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, we follow the requirements of the [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 **MUST 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. From be7d5549fc35153553776ad6615095a5d2e3a804 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 23:33:07 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 24/41] Yes, core eips are different --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 28 +++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 2161db86298bff..7272e43289d9b8 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -55,13 +55,13 @@ It is highly recommended that a single EIP contain a single key proposal or new 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 +## Core EIP Specifications -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: +***The Specification of Core EIPs is the responsibility of the Core Developers***, who the Editors treat as an independent Working Group. -``` -REVERT (0xfe) -``` +Core EIPs first enter EIP source control as **Drafts**. While they are **Drafts** they belong to the Core WG workflow. The stages of Core document workflow, the formatting and notational requirements for Core EIP Specifications and their relationship to the Executable Specifications, all of these are Core Developer concerns. + +Core EIPs reenter the EIP workflow to become **Final** when they describe what actually goes live on the Ethereum mainnet (after that the network can't be changed without another fork.) The Editors' responsibility is to work with the authors to ensure that Final EIPs meet all standards of format, style, and usage. ## EIP Work Flow @@ -73,15 +73,9 @@ 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 are the responsibility of the Core Developers.* The Editors treat them as an independent Working Group, and therefore act primarilily as publishers. - -As such, we don't specify very much about the format of the document -- e.g. required sections, notations, references, etc. -- or the associated workflow. Our job is to accept proposals as Drafts, keep them under source control, and work with the authors to ensure that Final EIPs meet the standards of style and usage laid out here. - -Editorially, a **Final EIP** must be just that: "in a state of finality." For Core EIPs that happens when they actually go live on the Ethereum mainnet -- after that the network can't be changed without another fork. +#### Core EIPs -So 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). @@ -100,7 +94,7 @@ The following is the overall standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks. ![EIP Status Diagram](../assets/eip-1/EIP-process-update.jpg) -*Note: For Core EIPs only Draft, Withdrawn, and Final are used. In between them, the Core Developers are responsible for their own process.* +*Note: For Core EIPs only Draft, Withdrawn, and Final are used in the Preamble. In between them, the Core Developers are responsible for their own process.* #### Idea @@ -144,7 +138,7 @@ A special status for EIPs that are designed to be continually updated and not re ### 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 require Technical Peers with the relevant expertise who can review the Author's Idea and work with the Author to ensure a technically sound proposal. +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? @@ -190,7 +184,7 @@ An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people 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 +#### References *(if any)* Complete references for each external resource must be included in this section, as specified below. @@ -292,7 +286,7 @@ External resources not so permitted **MAY** be included *at the Editors' discret 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, we follow the requirements of the [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 **MUST 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. +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. From 9fa04a44ac0f6bc2bbd4c487d65651c868265a79 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:04:11 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 25/41] Further work on working groups. --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 7272e43289d9b8..e02462af17b353 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -55,13 +55,23 @@ It is highly recommended that a single EIP contain a single key proposal or new 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. -## Core EIP Specifications +## Working Groups -***The Specification of Core EIPs is the responsibility of the Core Developers***, who the Editors treat as an independent Working Group. +Many proposals will come into EIP process via working groups who take responsibility for their specification and technical quality. The stages of Working Group workflow, the formatting and notational requirements for their Specifications, all of these are WG concerns. -Core EIPs first enter EIP source control as **Drafts**. While they are **Drafts** they belong to the Core WG workflow. The stages of Core document workflow, the formatting and notational requirements for Core EIP Specifications and their relationship to the Executable Specifications, all of these are Core Developer concerns. +* Working group proposals first enter the EIP process as **Drafts**. +* While WG proposals are **Drafts** their Specification belongs to the WG, including their workflow, formatting, notation, and relationship to other Ethereum Specifications. +* WG EIPs reenter the EIP process to become **Final**, that is, to describe what actually goes live on the Ethereum mainnet. (After that the network can't be changed without another fork.) -Core EIPs reenter the EIP workflow to become **Final** when they describe what actually goes live on the Ethereum mainnet (after that the network can't be changed without another fork.) The Editors' responsibility is to work with the authors to ensure that Final EIPs meet all standards of format, style, and usage. +Currently, only the Core Developers are organized enough to already be doing 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 indivitual authors and for working group, is to work with the authors to ensure that Final EIPs meet all standards of format, style, and usage, and to provide administrative and publication services. ## EIP Work Flow @@ -90,11 +100,13 @@ These calls generally result in a "rough consensus" around what EIPs should be i ### EIP Process -The following is the overall standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks. The diagram shows all of the states a document can be in and the transitions beteen those states. +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 beteen those states. ![EIP Status Diagram](../assets/eip-1/EIP-process-update.jpg) -*Note: For Core EIPs only Draft, Withdrawn, and Final are used in the Preamble. In between them, the Core Developers are responsible for their own process.* +***For Working Groups only Draft, Final, and Withdrawn are used in the Preamble. While a document is a Draft the working group is responsible for its process.*** + +All other proposals will move through all stages of this process. #### Idea From ff40261056a5aaa34f7c26fcc2c0cc38a6a24305 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 15:06:47 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 26/41] more working --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 14 +++++++++----- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index e02462af17b353..2cf83c4a3c7a3d 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ An EIP must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete descr ## Working Groups -Many proposals will come into EIP process via working groups who take responsibility for their specification and technical quality. The stages of Working Group workflow, the formatting and notational requirements for their Specifications, all of these are WG concerns. +Many proposals will come into EIP process via working groups who take responsibility for their specification and technical quality. Working Group concerns include the technical quality of their proposals, the formatting and notations for their Specifications, the workflow for their documents, and addditional repos for tracking their work. * Working group proposals first enter the EIP process as **Drafts**. * While WG proposals are **Drafts** their Specification belongs to the WG, including their workflow, formatting, notation, and relationship to other Ethereum Specifications. @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ Currently, only the Core Developers are organized enough to already be doing thi ### Core EIPs -***The Specification of Core EIPs is the responsibility of the Core Developers***, who the Editors treat as an independent working group. +***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 indivitual authors and for working group, is to work with the authors to ensure that Final EIPs meet all standards of format, style, and usage, and to provide administrative and publication services. +The Editors' job, for individual authors and for working groups, is to work with the authors to ensure that Final EIPs meet all standards of format, style, and usage, and to provide administrative and publication services. ## EIP Work Flow @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ The following is the full, default standardization process for all EIPs in all t ![EIP Status Diagram](../assets/eip-1/EIP-process-update.jpg) -***For Working Groups only Draft, Final, and Withdrawn are used in the Preamble. While a document is a Draft the working group is responsible for its process.*** +***For Working Groups only Draft, Final, and Withdrawn are used as a `status` in the Preamble. While a document is a Draft the working group is responsible for its process.*** All other proposals will move through all stages of this process. @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ Core EIPs are intensely scrutinized by the client teams and other developers for ### EIP Sections -*Note that Core EIPs may have additional sections at the Core WG's discretion, as may any EIP at the Editors' discretion.* +*Note that Working Group EIPs may have additional sections at the WG's discretion, as may any EIP at the Editors' discretion.* Each EIP should have the following sections: @@ -235,6 +235,10 @@ Each EIP must begin with an [RFC 822](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt) style `requires`: *EIP number(s)* (Optional field) `withdrawal-reason`: *A sentence explaining why the EIP was withdrawn.* (Optional field, only needed when status is `Withdrawn`) + +`working-group:`: *The name of the Working Group responsible for this EIP* (Optional, if any.) + +`working-group-status:`: *The status of this EIP in the Working Group workflow.* (Optional, if any.) Working Groups can introduce their own headers, which should come last. From 0153a81c6ad6a6b56e6165ce2e9317b6e1ed64b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 16:06:42 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 27/41] nits --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 18 ++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 2cf83c4a3c7a3d..21d5b140285b9b 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -57,11 +57,11 @@ An EIP must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete descr ## Working Groups -Many proposals will come into EIP process via working groups who take responsibility for their specification and technical quality. Working Group concerns include the technical quality of their proposals, the formatting and notations for their Specifications, the workflow for their documents, and addditional repos for tracking their work. +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 addditional repos for tracking their work. -* Working group proposals first enter the EIP process as **Drafts**. -* While WG proposals are **Drafts** their Specification belongs to the WG, including their workflow, formatting, notation, and relationship to other Ethereum Specifications. -* WG EIPs reenter the EIP process to become **Final**, that is, to describe what actually goes live on the Ethereum mainnet. (After that the network can't be changed without another fork.) +* 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**. Currently, only the Core Developers are organized enough to already be doing this job. @@ -69,9 +69,9 @@ Currently, only the Core Developers are organized enough to already be doing thi ***The Specification of Core EIPs is the responsibility of the Core Developers***, who the Editors treat as an independent Working Group. -## Editorial Services +### Editorial Services -The Editors' job, for individual authors and for working groups, is to work with the authors to ensure that Final EIPs meet all standards of format, style, and usage, and to provide administrative and publication services. +The Editors' job, for individual authors and for working groups, is to work with the authors to ensure that Final EIPs meet all standards of quality, format, style, and usage, and to provide administrative and publication services for EIPs and related digital assets. ## EIP Work Flow @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ The following is the full, default standardization process for all EIPs in all t ![EIP Status Diagram](../assets/eip-1/EIP-process-update.jpg) -***For Working Groups only Draft, Final, and Withdrawn are used as a `status` in the Preamble. While a document is a Draft the working group is responsible for its process.*** +***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 will move through all stages of this process. @@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ A motivation section is critical for EIPs that want to change the Ethereum proto 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 *(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. @@ -236,7 +238,7 @@ Each EIP must begin with an [RFC 822](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt) style `withdrawal-reason`: *A sentence explaining why the EIP was withdrawn.* (Optional field, only needed when status is `Withdrawn`) -`working-group:`: *The name of the Working Group responsible for this EIP* (Optional, if any.) +`working-group:`: *The name of the Working Group responsible for this EIP* (If any.) `working-group-status:`: *The status of this EIP in the Working Group workflow.* (Optional, if any.) From 100270cfdf39a96ffc2165be8ae82e433e97a0e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:49:09 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 28/41] Add discussion-to link to Magicians --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 21d5b140285b9b..c1aaf41b6794af 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 --- From effa32ab31a07f21d8567da8ee370756f68602d9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 08:38:48 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 29/41] WG links --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index c1aaf41b6794af..771ac4a03f61ae 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ An EIP must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete descr 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 addditional repos for tracking their work. -* Working group proposals first enter the EIP process (see below) as **Drafts**. +* 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**. @@ -241,6 +241,8 @@ Each EIP must begin with an [RFC 822](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt) style `working-group:`: *The name of the Working Group responsible for this EIP* (If any.) +`working-group-draft:`: *A link to the Working Group draft of this EIP if not in etherem/EIP/EIPs.* (Optional, if any.) + `working-group-status:`: *The status of this EIP in the Working Group workflow.* (Optional, if any.) Working Groups can introduce their own headers, which should come last. @@ -301,7 +303,7 @@ Other than the specific exceptions listed below, links to external resources **S The process governing permitted external resources is described in [EIP-5757](./eip-5757.md). -External resources not so permitted **MAY** be included *at the Editors' discretion*. +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. From c39180f0670a1bfe6988497f263763f6b3609ea4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 08:48:02 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 30/41] WK links --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 771ac4a03f61ae..2c4eac6c2cbf50 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -532,23 +532,23 @@ 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). @@ -556,17 +556,17 @@ 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 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. @@ -578,15 +578,15 @@ 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 From de16c2db67db23e80ae69cb60687d71a02e129b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 08:53:43 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 31/41] Update EIPS/eip-1.md Co-authored-by: Gavin John --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 2c4eac6c2cbf50..8d74022c7844e0 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ There are three types of EIP: Standards Track, Meta and Informational. ### 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/execution-specs). Furthermore, Standards Track EIPs can be broken down into Core, Networking, Interface, and ERC. +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. #### Core From f37f9b1e6a1a575bd52ef2ed09ca76035ee2e3e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:19:07 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 32/41] Update EIPS/eip-1.md Co-authored-by: Gavin John --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 8d74022c7844e0..3fb4c5cdc55d76 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ Each EIP should have the following sections: #### 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. +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 From ac15fadd9d482296d1a0d2df470c23f8edf862b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:30:29 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 33/41] Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Gavin John --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 3fb4c5cdc55d76..96e029986615fc 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -169,7 +169,9 @@ RFC 822 style headers containing metadata about the EIP, including the EIP numbe 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)* +#### 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. @@ -179,19 +181,27 @@ The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new Working groups MAY specify additional requirements, including on the form of the Specification and the implementation of the technology. -#### Rationale *(optional)* +#### 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 *(optional)* +#### 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 *(optional)* +#### 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 *(optional)* +#### 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. @@ -199,7 +209,9 @@ An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people 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 *(if any)* +#### 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. From 881bf053706cc0929c611dac0bc4321b2b83fc8d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:52:09 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 34/41] wording on revision/review --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 96e029986615fc..d09164843fa0eb 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -572,7 +572,7 @@ For each new EIP that comes in, an editor does the following: * 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 and possibly a request for review by Technical Peers. +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: From 2be6a5b2996250579e0f6d1deae0fed0f7ad7299 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 12:02:02 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 35/41] Increase WG powers 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 other Editors. --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index d09164843fa0eb..39c282c5e5e39f 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -58,13 +58,15 @@ An EIP must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete descr ## Working Groups -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 addditional repos for tracking their work. +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. * 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**. -Currently, only the Core Developers are organized enough to already be doing this job. +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 other Editors. + +Currently, only the Core Developers are organized enough to do this job. ### Core EIPs @@ -72,7 +74,7 @@ Currently, only the Core Developers are organized enough to already be doing thi ### Editorial Services -The Editors' job, for individual authors and for working groups, is to work with the authors to ensure that Final EIPs meet all standards of quality, format, style, and usage, and to provide administrative and publication services for EIPs and related digital assets. +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 From a4cbf7f7b7d91beb6da4d7bbfd152632f6fba0d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 20:32:35 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 36/41] labeling of optional headers --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 25 ++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 39c282c5e5e39f..1fa0eea6478149 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ ---- +—- eip: 1 title: EIP Purpose and Guidelines status: Living @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ 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 ---- ## What is an EIP? @@ -64,7 +63,7 @@ Many proposals will come into EIP process via working groups who take responsibi * 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 other Editors. +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. @@ -241,23 +240,23 @@ 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.* (Optional field, only needed when status is `Withdrawn`) +`withdrawal-reason`: *A sentence explaining why the EIP was withdrawn* — This header is only needed when the status is `Withdrawn`. -`working-group:`: *The name of the Working Group responsible for this EIP* (If any.) +`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-draft:`: *A link to the Working Group draft of this EIP if not in etherem/EIP/EIPs.* (Optional, if any.) +`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.* (Optional, if any.) +`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. Working Groups can introduce their own headers, which should come last. @@ -490,8 +489,8 @@ This is a sentence with a footnote.[^1] Which renders to: - - + + This is a sentence with a footnote.[^1] @@ -522,7 +521,7 @@ 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. From 0927ce97d84086e3051298c124e867c9fc175be4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 21:00:13 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 37/41] hyphens --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 1fa0eea6478149..e5c337d9523be1 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -—- +--- eip: 1 title: EIP Purpose and Guidelines status: Living From c58f1ddc616da7660cfdb3ff8116c01ee8c5a38f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 21:04:11 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 38/41] more hypens --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index e5c337d9523be1..b543108f25d3ab 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ 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 +--- ## What is an EIP? From 99228704a82a384b69492bfcba0884e54ea3365a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 21:32:43 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 39/41] still more hyphens -- and some bold italic --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index b543108f25d3ab..7b8ee6594686c7 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ Many proposals will come into EIP process via working groups who take responsibi * 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. +***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. @@ -490,8 +490,8 @@ This is a sentence with a footnote.[^1] Which renders to: - - + + This is a sentence with a footnote.[^1] @@ -522,7 +522,7 @@ 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. From 41d662da2d7d666f0a18f5a88a0ae0c49e3adc33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Colvin Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 22:15:27 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 40/41] Update eip-1.md --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 7b8ee6594686c7..64d8eff643d2b9 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ Many proposals will come into EIP process via working groups who take responsibi * 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. +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. From 3675990ffbb25dd69bc7108d913f3975429838c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Gavin John Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:37:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 41/41] Typo busting --- EIPS/eip-1.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index 64d8eff643d2b9..fcc45f090235a0 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ Currently, only the Core Developers are organized enough to do this job. ### 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. +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 @@ -103,13 +103,13 @@ These calls generally result in a "rough consensus" around what EIPs should be i ### EIP Process -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 beteen those states. +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) -***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`.*** +***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 will move through all stages of this process. +All other proposals can move through all stages of this process. #### Idea