Ecosyste.ms: Awesome

An open API service indexing awesome lists of open source software.

Awesome Lists | Featured Topics | Projects

https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs

Request for Comments focused on Hathor Network
https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs

Last synced: 3 months ago
JSON representation

Request for Comments focused on Hathor Network

Awesome Lists containing this project

README 

        
# Hathor RFCs

[Hathor RFCs]: #hathor-rfcs



Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be

implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.



Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a

bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Hathor community and

the core developers.



The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and

controlled path for new features to enter the network and official libraries,

so that all stakeholders can be confident about the direction Hathor is evolving

in.



## Table of Contents

[Table of Contents]: #table-of-contents



- [Opening](#hathor-rfcs)

- [Table of Contents]

- [Summary of RFCs]

- [When you need to follow this process]

- [Before creating an RFC]

- [What the process is]

- [The RFC life-cycle]

- [Reviewing RFCs]

- [Implementing an RFC]

- [RFC Postponement]

- [Help this is all too informal!]

- [License]



## Summary of RFCs

[Summary of RFCs]: #summary-of-rfcs



### Finished RFCs (done, with a stable interface)



| Number | Title               | Status    | Network         |

|--------|---------------------|-----------|-----------------|

| 1   | [RFC Process](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0001-rfc-process.md) | Done      | |



### Accepted RFCs (accepted; may not be implemented yet)



| Number | Title               | Status    | Network         |

|--------|---------------------|-----------|-----------------|

| 4   | [Creation of Tokens](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0004-tokens.md) | Accepted  | testnet-bravo |

| 11   | [Token Deposit](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0011-token-deposit.md) | Accepted  | testnet-bravo |

| MR-5   | [Multi-signature Transaction Outputs](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/multi-sig/text/0005-multi-sig.md) | Accepted | testnet-bravo |

| 15  | [The Anatomy of a Transaction](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0015-anatomy-of-tx.md) | Accepted | - |

| 27  | [Exchange Integration Guide](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0027-exchange-integration.md) | Draft | - |

| 32  | [NFT Standard](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0032-nft-standard.md) | Accepted | - |

| 44  | [Best Practices for Integrations](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0044-use-case-integration-best-practices.md) | Accepted | - |



### Provisional RFCs (provisionally accepted; interface may still change)



| Number | Title               | Status    | Network         |

|--------|---------------------|-----------|-----------------|

| MR-13  | [Peer-to-Peer Protocol: Handshaking & Control Messages](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/p2p-identity/text/0000-p2p-identity.md) | Draft | |

| MR-17  | [Peer-to-peer Protocol: Synchronization](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/p2p-sync/text/0000-p2p-sync.md) | Draft | |

| MR-6   | [Merged Mining with Bitcoin](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0006-merged-mining-with-bitcoin.md) | Draft | |

| MR-7   | [Stratum Protocol](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/stratum/text/0000-stratum.md) | Draft | testnet-bravo |

| MR-8   | [Transaction Header](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/transaction-header/text/0001-transaction-header.md) | Draft | testnet-bravo |



### Open RFCs (under consideration)



| Number | Title               | Status    | Network         |

|--------|---------------------|-----------|-----------------|

| MR-19  | [Consensus Protocol](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/consensus/text/0000-consensus.md) | Draft | |

| MR-14  | [Token Captain](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/token-captain/text/0000-token-captain.md) | Draft | |

| MR-9   | [Side-DAGs](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/side-dags/0000-side-dags.md) | Draft | |

| MR-3   | [Nano Contracts: Oracles](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/1st-nano-contract/0000-nano-contracts.md) | Draft | |

| MR-2   | [Summarize Blocks](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/summarizing-blocks/text/0000-summarizing-blocks.md) | Draft | |

| 25  | [Peer-to-peer Protocol: Sync v2](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0025-p2p-sync-v2.md) | Draft | - |



## When you need to follow this process

[When you need to follow this process]: #when-you-need-to-follow-this-process



You need to follow this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to

the Hathor protocol, network or the RFC process itself. What constitutes a

"substantial" change is evolving based on community norms and varies depending

on what part of the ecosystem you are proposing to change, but may include the

following.



- Any change that affects the transaction or block's serialization format.

- Changes to the validation of transactions and blocks.

- Changes to the opcodes of the script language.

- Changes that affects the consensus of the network, i.e., which transactions

  are voided and which are executed.

- In general any feature that requires a soft or hard fork.



Some changes do not require an RFC:



- Rephrasing, reorganizing, refactoring, or otherwise "changing shape does not

  change meaning".

- Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality criteria (warning

  removal, speedup, better platform coverage, more parallelism, trap more

  errors, etc.)

- Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other developers-of-hathor, invisible

  to users-of-hathor.



If you submit a pull request to implement a new feature without going through

the RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first.



## Before creating an RFC

[Before creating an RFC]: #before-creating-an-rfc



A hastily-proposed RFC can hurt its chances of acceptance. Low quality

proposals, proposals for previously-rejected features, or those that don't fit

into the near-term roadmap, may be quickly rejected, which can be demotivating

for the unprepared contributor. Laying some groundwork ahead of the RFC can make

the process smoother.



Although there is no single way to prepare for submitting an RFC, it is

generally a good idea to pursue feedback from other project developers

beforehand, to ascertain that the RFC may be desirable; having a consistent

impact on the project requires concerted effort toward consensus-building.



The most common preparations for writing and submitting an RFC include talking

the idea over on our Discord, Telegram, or WhatsApp groups, and occasionally

posting "pre-RFCs" on the developer forum. You may file issues on this repo for

discussion, but these are not actively looked at by core team.



As a rule of thumb, receiving encouraging feedback from long-standing project

developers, and particularly members of the core team is a good indication that

the RFC is worth pursuing.



## What the process is

[What the process is]: #what-the-process-is



In short, to get a major feature added to Hathor, one must first get the RFC

merged into the RFC repository as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is

"active" and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Hathor.



- Fork the RFC repo [RFC repository]

- Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where "my-feature" is

  descriptive. don't assign an RFC number yet).

- Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: RFCs that do not present

  convincing motivation, demonstrate lack of understanding of the impact of the

  design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives tend to be

  poorly-received.

- Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design feedback

  from the larger community, and the author should be prepared to revise it in

  response.

- Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much

  more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments. Feel

  free to reach out to the RFC assignee in particular to get help identifying

  stakeholders and obstacles.

- The core team will discuss the RFC pull request, as much as possible in the

  comment thread of the pull request itself. Offline discussion will be

  summarized on the pull request comment thread.

- RFCs rarely go through this process unchanged, especially as alternatives and

  drawbacks are shown. You can make edits, big and small, to the RFC to clarify

  or change the design, but make changes as new commits to the pull request, and

  leave a comment on the pull request explaining your changes.  Specifically, do

  not squash or rebase commits after they are visible on the pull request.

- At some point, a member of the core team will propose a "motion for final

  comment period" (FCP), along with a *disposition* for the RFC (merge, close,

  or postpone).

- This step is taken when enough of the tradeoffs have been discussed that the

  subteam is in a position to make a decision. That does not require consensus

  amongst all participants in the RFC thread (which is usually impossible).

  However, the argument supporting the disposition on the RFC needs to have

  already been clearly articulated, and there should not be a strong consensus

  *against* that position outside of the subteam. Subteam members use their best

  judgment in taking this step, and the FCP itself ensures there is ample time

  and notification for stakeholders to push back if it is made prematurely.

  - For RFCs with lengthy discussion, the motion to FCP is usually preceded by a

    *summary comment* trying to lay out the current state of the discussion and

    major tradeoffs/points of disagreement.

  - Before actually entering FCP, *all* members of the core team must sign off;

    this is often the point at which many subteam members first review the RFC

    in full depth.

- The FCP lasts ten calendar days, so that it is open for at least 5 business

  days. It is also advertised widely, e.g. in [Hathor's twitter][hathor-twitter].

  This way all stakeholders have a chance to lodge any final objections before a

  decision is reached.

- In most cases, the FCP period is quiet, and the RFC is either merged or

  closed. However, sometimes substantial new arguments or ideas are raised, the

  FCP is canceled, and the RFC goes back into development mode.



## The RFC life-cycle

[The RFC life-cycle]: #the-rfc-life-cycle



Once an RFC becomes "active" then authors may implement it and submit the

feature as a pull request to the Hathor repo. Being "active" is not a rubber

stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be

merged; it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed to

the feature and are amenable to merging it.



Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is "active" implies

nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor does it imply

anything about whether a Hathor developer has been assigned the task of

implementing the feature. While it is not *necessary* that the author of the RFC

also write the implementation, it is by far the most effective way to see an RFC

through to completion: authors should not expect that other project developers

will take on responsibility for implementing their accepted feature.



Modifications to "active" RFCs can be done in follow-up pull requests. We strive

to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the

feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged

RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the next

major release.



In general, once accepted, RFCs should not be substantially changed. Only very

minor changes should be submitted as amendments. More substantial changes should

be new RFCs, with a note added to the original RFC. Exactly what counts as a

"very minor change" is up to the core team to decide.



## Reviewing RFCs

[Reviewing RFCs]: #reviewing-rfcs



While the RFC pull request is up, the core team may schedule meetings with the

author and/or relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues in greater detail, and

in some cases the topic may be discussed at a core team meeting. In either case

a summary from the meeting will be posted back to the RFC pull request.



The core team makes final decisions about RFCs after the benefits and drawbacks

are well understood. These decisions can be made at any time, but the core team

will regularly issue decisions. When a decision is made, the RFC pull request

will either be merged or closed. In either case, if the reasoning is not clear

from the discussion in thread, the core team will add a comment describing the

rationale for the decision.



## Implementing an RFC

[Implementing an RFC]: #implementing-an-rfc



Some accepted RFCs represent vital features that need to be implemented right

away. Other accepted RFCs can represent features that can wait until some

arbitrary developer feels like doing the work. Every accepted RFC has an

associated issue tracking its implementation in the Hathor repository; thus that

associated issue can be assigned a priority via the triage process that the team

uses for all issues in the Hathor repository.



The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC author

(like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for review after

the RFC has been accepted.



If you are interested in working on the implementation for an "active" RFC, but

cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask

(e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).



## RFC Postponement

[RFC Postponement]: #rfc-postponement



Some RFC pull requests are tagged with the "postponed" label when they are

closed (as part of the rejection process). An RFC closed with "postponed" is

marked as such because we want neither to think about evaluating the proposal

nor about implementing the described feature until some time in the future, and

we believe that we can afford to wait until then to do so. Postponed pull

requests may be re-opened when the time is right. We don't have any formal

process for that, you should ask members of the core team.



Usually an RFC pull request marked as "postponed" has already passed an informal

first round of evaluation, namely the round of "do we think we would ever

possibly consider making this change, as outlined in the RFC pull request, or

some semi-obvious variation of it." (When the answer to the latter question is

"no", then the appropriate response is to close the RFC, not postpone it.)



### Help this is all too informal!

[Help this is all too informal!]: #help-this-is-all-too-informal



The process is intended to be as lightweight as reasonable for the present

circumstances. As usual, we are trying to let the process be driven by consensus

and community norms, not impose more structure than necessary.



## License

[License]: #license



This repository is currently in licensed under either of



- Apache License, Version 2.0, ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE) or

  http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)

- MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)



### Contributions

[Contributions]: #contributions



Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted

for inclusion in the work by you, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, shall be

dual licensed as above, without any additional terms or conditions.



[RFC issue tracker]: https://github.com/hathor/rfcs/issues

[RFC repository]: http://github.com/hathor/rfcs

[hathor-twitter]: https://twitter.com/hathornetwork