| IIP | 0001 |
| Title | IIP Purpose and Guidelines |
| Author | Adam Mattlack and Michael Pfeiffer |
| Status | Draft |
| Type | Process |
| Created | 01-06-2018 |
IIP stands for ION Improvement Proposal. An IIP is a design document providing information to the ION community, or describing a new feature for ION or its processes or environment. The IIP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature.
We intend IIPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into ION. The IIP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions.
Because the IIPs are maintained as text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal.
There are three kinds of IIP:
-
A Standards Track IIP describes any change that affects most or all ION implementations, such as a change to the network protocol, a change in block or transaction validity rules, or any change or addition that affects the interoperability of applications using ION.
-
An Informational IIP describes a ION design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the ION community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational IIPs do not necessarily represent a ION community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementers are free to ignore Informational IIPs or follow their advice.
-
A Process IIP describes a process surrounding ION, or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process IIPs are like Standards Track IIPs but apply to areas other than the ION protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to ION's codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational IIPs, 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 ION development. Any meta-IIP is also considered a Process IIP.
The IIP process begins with a new idea for ION. Each potential IIP must have a champion -- someone who writes the IIP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The IIP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is IIP-able.
Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing an IIP is meant to save both the potential author and the wider community time. Many ideas have been brought forward for changing ION that have been rejected for various reasons. Asking the ION community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the internet does not always do the trick). It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will work for most people in most areas where ION is used. Small enhancements or patches often don't need standardisation between multiple projects; these don't need an IIP and should be injected into the relevant ION development workflow with a patch submission to the applicable ION issue tracker.
Once the champion has asked the ION community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft IIP should be presented to the ION-dev mailing list. This gives the author a chance to flesh out the draft IIP to make it properly formatted, of high quality, and to address additional concerns about the proposal. Following a discussion, the proposal should be sent to the ION-dev list and the IIP editor with the draft IIP. This draft must be written in IIP style as described below, else it will be sent back without further regard until proper formatting rules are followed.
IIP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on both the initial idea and the IIP before submitting it for review. However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies to keep the discussions efficient include: setting up a separate SIG mailing list for the topic, having the IIP author accept private comments in the early design phases, setting up a wiki page or git repository, etc. IIP authors should use their discretion here.
It is highly recommended that a single IIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the IIP, the more successful it tends to be. If in doubt, split your IIP into several well-focused ones.
The IIP editors assign IIP numbers and change their status. Please send all IIP-related email to the IIP editor, which is listed under IIP Editors below. Also see IIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow. The IIP editor reserves the right to reject IIP proposals if they appear too unfocused or too broad.
Authors MUST NOT self assign IIP numbers, but should use an alias such as "IIP-johndoe-tokens" which includes the author's name/nick and the IIP subject.
If the IIP editor approves, he will assign the IIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, give it status "Draft", and add it to the IIPs git repository. The IIP editor will not unreasonably deny an IIP. Reasons for denying IIP status include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the ION philosophy. For an IIP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the protocol unduly.
The IIP author may update the Draft as necessary in the git repository. Updates to drafts may also be submitted by the author as pull requests.
Standards Track IIPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. The IIP should be reviewed and accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a reference implementation will aid people in studying the IIP. Standards Track IIPs must include an implementation -- in the form of code, a patch, or a URL to same -- before it can be considered Final.
Once an IIP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and accepted by the community, the status will be changed to "Final".
A IIP can also be assigned status "Deferred". The IIP author or editor can assign the IIP this status when no progress is being made on the IIP. Once an IIP is deferred, the IIP editor can re-assign it to draft status.
A IIP can also be "Rejected". Perhaps after all is said and done it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of this fact.
IIPs can also be superseded by a different IIP, rendering the original obsolete. This is intended for Informational IIPs, where version 2 of an API can replace version 1.
The possible paths of the status of IIPs are as follows:
Some Informational and Process IIPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. IIP 1 (this IIP).
Each IIP should have the following parts:
- Abstract — a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
- Copyright/public domain — Each IIP must either be explicitly labelled as placed in the public domain (see this IIP as an example) or licensed under the Open Publication License.
- Plain Language Summary (tl;dr) — Non-technical statement of intended effects.
- 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 ION platforms (IONJ, ION-js).
- Motivation — The motivation is critical for IIPs that want to change the ION protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the IIP solves. IIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
- Rationale — The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages.
- The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
- Backwards Compatibility — All IIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The IIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. IIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
- Reference Implementation — The reference implementation must be completed before any IIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the IIP is accepted. It is better to finish the specification and rationale first and reach consensus on it before writing code. The final implementation must include test code and documentation appropriate for the ION protocol.