snip: <to be assigned>
title: <SNIP title>
author: <a list of the author's or authors' name(s) and/or username(s), or name(s) and email(s), e.g. (use with the parentheses or triangular brackets): FirstName LastName (@GitHubUsername), FirstName LastName <[email protected]>, FirstName (@GitHubUsername) and GitHubUsername (@GitHubUsername)>
type: <Standard, Meta, or Informational>
created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
requires (*optional): <SNIP number(s)>
replaces (*optional): <SNIP number(s)>
This is the suggested template for new SNIPs.
Note that SNIP identity will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your SNIP, please use an abbreviated title in the filename,
The title should be 42 characters or less.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the SNIP.
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
The motivation is critical for SNIPs that want to change the Secret Network protocol. Clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem solved by the proposed improvement. SNIPs without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature.
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 may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and it should discuss important objections or concerns raised.
All SNIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The SNIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. SNIPs without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
Mandatory for SNIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other SNIPs can links to test cases if applicable.
Must be completed before any SNIP is given "Final" status, but need not be completed before the SNIP is accepted. While there is merit to the approach of reaching consensus on the specification and rationale before writing code, the principle of "rough consensus and running code" is useful when it comes to resolving many discussions of API details.
All SNIPs 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. SNIPs without a "Security Considerations" section will be rejected.