diff --git a/EIPS/eip-1.md b/EIPS/eip-1.md index d2bd33ab7bd224..32311a996885c1 100644 --- a/EIPS/eip-1.md +++ b/EIPS/eip-1.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ created: 2015-10-27 ## What is an EIP? -EIP stands for Ethereum Improvement Proposal. An EIP is a design document providing information to the Ethereum community, or describing a new feature for Ethereum or its processes or environment. The EIP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature. The EIP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions. +EIP stands for Ethereum Improvement Proposal. An EIP is a design document providing information to the Ethereum community, or describing a new feature for Ethereum or its processes or environment. The EIP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature. The EIP Author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions. ## EIP Rationale @@ -21,16 +21,16 @@ For Ethereum implementers, EIPs are a convenient way to track the progress of th There are three types of EIP: -- 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)). +- 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 [reference implementation](https://github.com/ethereum/execution-specs/) and [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) (eg. 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 language-level standards like method names ([EIP-6](./eip-6.md)) and [contract ABIs](https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/develop/abi-spec.html). - **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. -- 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. - - 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. +- 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. + It is highly recommended that a single EIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the EIP, the more successful it tends to be. A change to one client doesn't require an EIP; a change that affects multiple clients, or defines a standard for multiple apps to use, does. An EIP must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the protocol unduly. @@ -47,9 +47,9 @@ REVERT (0xfe) ### Shepherding an EIP -Parties involved in the process are you, the champion or *EIP author*, the [*EIP editors*](#eip-editors), and the [*Ethereum Core Developers*](https://github.com/ethereum/pm). +Parties involved in the process are you, the champion or *EIP Author*, the [*EIP Editors*](#eip-editors), and the [*Ethereum Core Developers*](https://github.com/ethereum/pm). -Before you begin writing a formal EIP, you should vet your idea. Ask the Ethereum community first if an idea is original to avoid wasting time on something that will be rejected based on prior research. It is thus recommended to open a discussion thread on [the Ethereum Magicians forum](https://ethereum-magicians.org/) to do this. +Before you begin writing a formal EIP, you should vet your idea. Ask the Ethereum community first if an idea is original to avoid wasting time on something that will be rejected based on prior research. It is thus recommended to open a discussion thread on the [Ethereum Magicians forum](https://ethereum-magicians.org/) to do this. 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. @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ The AllCoreDevs call serves as a way for client implementers to do three things. These calls generally result in a "rough consensus" around what EIPs should be implemented. This "rough consensus" rests on the assumptions that EIPs are not contentious enough to cause a network split and that they are technically sound. -:warning: The EIPs process and AllCoreDevs call were not designed to address contentious non-technical issues, but, due to the lack of other ways to address these, often end up entangled in them. This puts the burden on client implementers to try and gauge community sentiment, which hinders the technical coordination function of EIPs and AllCoreDevs calls. If you are shepherding an EIP, you can make the process of building community consensus easier by making sure that [the Ethereum Magicians forum](https://ethereum-magicians.org/) thread for your EIP includes or links to as much of the community discussion as possible and that various stakeholders are well-represented. +:warning: The EIPs process and AllCoreDevs call were not designed to address contentious non-technical issues, but, due to the lack of other ways to address these, often end up entangled in them. This puts the burden on client implementers to try and gauge community sentiment, which hinders the technical coordination function of EIPs and AllCoreDevs calls. If you are shepherding an EIP, you can make the process of building community consensus easier by making sure that the [Ethereum Magicians forum](https://ethereum-magicians.org/) thread for your EIP includes or links to as much of the community discussion as possible and that various stakeholders are well-represented. *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.* @@ -79,13 +79,13 @@ The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks: **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. +**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. +A pull request 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 pull request 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 its earlier status. If not resurrected, a proposal may stay forever in this status. @@ -99,10 +99,10 @@ A PR moving an EIP from Last Call to Final SHOULD contain no changes other than 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. +- 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). +- 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, reth, 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. @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ EIPs should be written in [markdown](https://github.com/adam-p/markdown-here/wik ## 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. +Each EIP must begin with an [RFC 822] 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. `eip`: *EIP number* @@ -414,24 +414,6 @@ Permitted Yellow Paper URLs must anchor to a specific commit, and so must match ^(https://github\.com/ethereum/yellowpaper/blob/[0-9a-f]{40}/paper\.pdf)$ ``` -### Execution Client Specification Tests - -Links to the Ethereum Execution Client Specification Tests may be included using normal markdown syntax, such as: - -```markdown -[Ethereum Execution Client Specification Tests](https://github.com/ethereum/execution-spec-tests/blob/d5a3188f122912e137aa2e21ed2a1403e806e424/README.md) -``` - -Which renders to: - -[Ethereum Execution Client Specification Tests](https://github.com/ethereum/execution-spec-tests/blob/d5a3188f122912e137aa2e21ed2a1403e806e424/README.md) - -Permitted Execution Client Specification Tests URLs must anchor to a specific commit, and so must match this regular expression: - -```regex -^(https://github.com/ethereum/execution-spec-tests/(blob|commit)/[0-9a-f]{40}/.*|https://github.com/ethereum/execution-spec-tests/tree/[0-9a-f]{40}/.*)$ -``` - ### Digital Object Identifier System Links qualified with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) may be included using the following syntax: @@ -513,24 +495,24 @@ References to other EIPs should follow the format `EIP-N` where `N` is the EIP n ## 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`. +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`. ## Transferring EIP Ownership It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of EIPs to a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author of the transferred EIP, but that's really up to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is because the original author no longer has the time or interest in updating it or following through with the EIP process, or has fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or isn't responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don't agree with the direction of the EIP. We try to build consensus around an EIP, but if that's not possible, you can always submit a competing EIP. -If you are interested in assuming ownership of an EIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the EIP editor. If the original author doesn't respond to the email in a timely manner, the EIP editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :)). +If you are interested in assuming ownership of an EIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the EIP Editor. If the original author doesn't respond to the email in a timely manner, the EIP Editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :)). ## EIP Editors -The current EIP editors are +The current EIP Editors are - Matt Garnett (@lightclient) - Sam Wilson (@SamWilsn) - Zainan Victor Zhou (@xinbenlv) - Gajinder Singh (@g11tech) -Emeritus EIP editors are +Emeritus EIP Editors are - Alex Beregszaszi (@axic) - Casey Detrio (@cdetrio) @@ -543,7 +525,7 @@ Emeritus EIP editors are - Nick Savers (@nicksavers) - Vitalik Buterin (@vbuterin) -If you would like to become an EIP editor, please check [EIP-5069](./eip-5069.md). +If you would like to become an EIP Editor, please check [EIP-5069](./eip-5069.md). ## EIP Editor Responsibilities @@ -555,13 +537,13 @@ For each new EIP that comes in, an editor does the following: If the EIP isn't ready, the editor will send it back to the author for revision, with specific instructions. -Once the EIP is ready for the repository, the EIP editor will: +Once the EIP is ready for the repository, the EIP Editor will: - Assign an EIP number (generally incremental; editors can reassign if number sniping is suspected) - Merge the corresponding [pull request](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pulls) -- Send a message back to the EIP author with the next step. +- 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. +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. The editors don't pass judgment on EIPs. We merely do the administrative & editorial part. @@ -593,8 +575,10 @@ EIPs are encouraged to follow [RFC 2119](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.html) ## History -This document was derived heavily from [Bitcoin's BIP-0001](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips) written by Amir Taaki which in turn was derived from [Python's PEP-0001](https://peps.python.org/). In many places text was simply copied and modified. Although the PEP-0001 text was written by Barry Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton, and David Goodger, they are not responsible for its use in the Ethereum Improvement Process, and should not be bothered with technical questions specific to Ethereum or the EIP. Please direct all comments to the EIP editors. +This document was derived heavily from [Bitcoin's BIP-0001](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips) written by Amir Taaki which in turn was derived from [Python's PEP-0001](https://peps.python.org/pep-0001/). In many places text was simply copied and modified. Although the PEP-0001 text was written by Barry Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton, and David Goodger, they are not responsible for its use in the Ethereum Improvement Process, and should not be bothered with technical questions specific to Ethereum or the EIP. Please direct all comments to the EIP Editors. ## Copyright Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE.md). + +[RFC 822]: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt