Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
531 lines (426 loc) · 23 KB

uip-1.md

File metadata and controls

531 lines (426 loc) · 23 KB
Raw
uip 1
title Penumbra Improvement Proposal Process and Guidelines
author Henry de Valence [email protected]
status Living
type Meta
created 2024-11-01

Table of Contents

  • What is a UIP?
  • UIP Rationale
  • UIP Types
  • UIP Work Flow
    • Shepherding a UIP
    • Core UIPs
    • UIP Process
  • What belongs in a successful UIP?
  • UIP Formats and Templates
  • UIP Header Preamble
    • author header
    • discussions-to header
    • type header
    • category header
    • created header
    • requires header
  • Linking to External Resources
    • Data Availability Specifications
    • Consensus Layer Specifications
    • Networking Specifications
    • Digital Object Identifier System
  • Linking to other UIPs
  • Auxiliary Files
  • Transferring UIP Ownership
  • UIP Editors
  • UIP Editor Responsibilities
  • Style Guide
    • Titles
    • Descriptions
    • UIP numbers
    • RFC 2119 and RFC 8174
  • History
  • Copyright

What is a UIP

UIP stands for Penumbra (UM) Improvement Proposal. A UIP is a design document providing information to the Penumbra community, or describing a new feature for Penumbra or its processes or environment. The UIP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature. The UIP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions.

UIP Rationale

We intend UIPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, for collecting community technical input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into Penumbra. Because the UIPs are maintained as text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal.

For Penumbra software clients and core devs, UIPs are a convenient way to track the progress of their implementation. Ideally, each implementation maintainer would list the UIPs that they have implemented. This will give end users a convenient way to know the current status of a given implementation or library.

UIP Types

There are three types of UIP:

  • Standards Track UIP describes any change that affects most or all Penumbra implementations, such as a change to the network protocol, a change in block or transaction validity rules, proposed standards/conventions, or any change or addition that affects the interoperability of software using Penumbra. Standards Track UIPs consist of three parts: a design document, an implementation, and (if warranted) an update to the formal specification. Standards Track UIPs are marked as either being "Consensus" or "Non-Consensus", depending on whether they affect the consensus-critical state transition function. Consensus UIPs SHOULD be approved by an on-chain signaling proposal to signal acceptance by the community.
  • Meta UIP describes a process surrounding Penumbra or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Meta UIPs are like Standards Track UIPs but apply to areas other than the Penumbra protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Penumbra’s codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational UIPs, 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 Penumbra development.
  • Informational UIP describes a Penumbra design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Penumbra community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational UIPs do not necessarily represent Penumbra community consensus or a recommendation, so users and implementers are free to ignore Informational UIPs or follow their advice.

It is highly recommended that a single UIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the UIP, the more successful it tends to be. A change to one client doesn’t require a UIP; a change that affects multiple clients, or defines a standard for multiple apps to use, does.

A UIP 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.

Penumbra Improvement Proposal (UIP) Workflow

Shepherding a UIP

Parties involved in the process are you, the champion or UIP author, the UIP editors, and the Penumbra Core Developers.

Before diving into writing a formal UIP, make sure your idea stands out. Consult the Penumbra community to ensure your idea is original, saving precious time by avoiding duplication. We highly recommend opening a discussion thread on the Penumbra forum for this purpose.

Once your idea passes the vetting process, your next responsibility is to present the idea via a UIP to reviewers and all interested parties. Invite editors, developers, and the community to give their valuable feedback through the relevant channels. Assess whether the interest in your UIP matches the work involved in implementing it and the number of parties required to adopt it. For instance, implementing a Core UIP demands considerably more effort than a CRC, necessitating adequate interest from Penumbra client teams. Be aware that negative community feedback may hinder your UIP's progression beyond the Draft stage.

Consensus UIPs

For Consensus UIPs, you'll need to either provide a client implementation or persuade clients to implement your UIP, given that client implementations are mandatory for Consensus UIPs to reach the Final stage (see "UIP Process" below).

To effectively present your UIP to client implementers, request a Penumbra CoreDevsCall (CDC) call by posting a comment linking your UIP on a CoreDevsCall agenda GitHub Issue.

The CoreDevsCall allows client implementers to:

  • Discuss the technical merits of UIPs
  • Gauge which UIPs other clients will be implementing
  • Coordinate UIP implementation for network upgrades

These calls generally lead to a "rough consensus" on which UIPs should be implemented. Rough Consensus is informed based on the IETF's RFC 7282 which is a helpful document to understand how decisions are made in Celestia CoreDevCalls. This consensus assumes that UIPs are not contentious enough to cause a network split and are technically sound. One important excerpt from the document that highlights based on Dave Clark's 1992 presentation is the following:

We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code.

On-chain voting is one way to signal community sentiment, but it is only one aspect of rough consensus.

⚠️ The burden falls on client implementers to estimate community sentiment, obstructing the technical coordination function of UIPs and AllCoreDevs calls. As a UIP shepherd, you can facilitate building community consensus by ensuring the Penumbra forum thread for your UIP encompasses as much of the community discussion as possible and represents various stakeholders.

In a nutshell, your role as a champion involves writing the UIP using the style and format described below, guiding discussions in appropriate forums, and fostering community consensus around the idea.

UIP Process

The standardization process for all UIPs in all tracks follows the below status:

  • Idea: A pre-draft idea not tracked within the UIP Repository.
  • Draft: The first formally tracked stage of a UIP in development. A UIP is merged by a UIP Editor into the UIP repository when properly formatted.
    • ➡️ Draft: If agreeable, UIP editor will assign the UIP a number (generally the next available number) and merge your pull request. The UIP editor will not unreasonably deny a UIP.
    • ❌ Draft: Reasons for denying Draft status include being too unfocused, too broad, duplication of effort, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the Penumbra values and code of conduct.
  • Review: A UIP Author marks a UIP as ready for and requesting Peer Review.
  • Last Call: The final review window for a UIP before moving to Final. A UIP editor assigns Last Call status and sets a review end date (last-call-deadline), typically 14 days later.
    • ❌ Review: A Last Call which results in material changes or substantial unaddressed technical complaints will cause the UIP to revert to Review.
    • ✅ Final: A successful Last Call without material changes or unaddressed technical complaints will become Final.
  • Final: This UIP represents the final standard. A Final UIP exists in a state of finality and should only be updated to correct errata and add non-normative clarifications. A PR moving a UIP 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.

Other Statuses

  • Stagnant: Any UIP in Draft, Review, or Last Call that remains inactive for 6 months or more is moved to Stagnant. Authors or UIP Editors can resurrect a proposal from this state by moving it back to Draft or its earlier status. If not resurrected, a proposal may stay forever in this status.
  • Withdrawn: The UIP Author(s) have withdrawn the proposed UIP. This state has finality and can no longer be resurrected using this UIP number. If the idea is pursued at a later date, it is considered a new proposal.
  • Living: A special status for UIPs designed to be continually updated and not reach a state of finality. This status caters to dynamic UIPs that require ongoing updates.

As you embark on this exciting journey of shaping Penumbra's future with your valuable ideas, remember that your contributions matter. Your technical knowledge, creativity, and ability to bring people together will ensure that the UIP process remains engaging, efficient, and successful in fostering a thriving ecosystem for Penumbra.

What belongs in a successful UIP

A successful Penumbra Improvement Proposal (UIP) should consist of the following parts:

  • Preamble: RFC 822 style headers containing metadata about the UIP, including the UIP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 words), a description (limited to a maximum of 140 words), and the author details. Regardless of the category, the title and description should not include the UIP number. See below for details.
  • Abstract: A multi-sentence (short paragraph) technical summary that provides a terse and human-readable version of the specification section. By reading the abstract alone, someone should be able to grasp the essence of what the proposal entails.
  • Motivation (optional): A motivation section is crucial for UIPs that seek to change the Penumbra protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is insufficient for addressing the problem the UIP solves. If the motivation is evident, this section can be omitted.
  • Specification: The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to enable competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Penumbra clients.
  • Parameters: Summary of any parameters introduced by or changed by the UIP.
  • Rationale: The rationale elaborates on the specification by explaining the reasoning behind the design and the choices made during the design process. It should discuss alternative designs that were considered and any related work. The rationale should address important objections or concerns raised during discussions around the UIP.
  • Backwards Compatibility (optional): For UIPs introducing backwards incompatibilities, this section must describe these incompatibilities and their consequences. The UIP must explain how the author proposes to handle these incompatibilities. If the proposal does not introduce any backwards incompatibilities, this section can be omitted.
  • Test Cases (optional): Test cases are mandatory for UIPs affecting consensus changes. They should either be inlined in the UIP as data (such as input/expected output pairs) or included in ../assets/uip-###/<filename>. This section can be omitted for non-Consensus proposals.
  • Reference Implementation (optional): This optional section contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to better understand or implement the specification. This section can be omitted for all UIPs ( mandatory for Consensus UIPs to reach the Final stage).
  • Security Considerations: All UIPs must include a section discussing relevant security implications and considerations. This section should provide information critical for security discussions, expose risks, and be used throughout the proposal's life-cycle. Examples include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, significant discussions, implementation-specific guidance, pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks, and how they are addressed. UIP submissions lacking a "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. A UIP cannot reach "Final" status without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
  • Privacy Considerations: All UIPs must include a section discussing relevant privacy implications and considerations. This section should provide information critical for privacy discussions, expose risks, and be used throughout the proposal's life-cycle. Examples include privacy-relevant design decisions, concerns, significant discussions, implementation-specific guidance, pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks, and how they are addressed. UIP submissions lacking a "Privacy Considerations" section will be rejected. A UIP cannot reach "Final" status without a Pecurity Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
  • Copyright Waiver: All UIPs 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.

UIP Formats and Templates

UIPs should be written in markdown format. There is a UIP template to follow.

UIP Header Preamble

Each UIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble in a markdown table. In order to display on the UIP site, the frontmatter must be formatted in a markdown table. The headers must appear in the following order:

  • uip: UIP number (this is determined by the UIP editor)
  • title: The UIP title is a few words, not a complete sentence
  • description: Description is one full (short) sentence
  • author: The list of the author’s or authors’ name(s) and/or username(s), or name(s) and email(s). Details are below.
  • discussions-to: The url pointing to the official discussion thread
  • 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)
  • type: One of Standards Track, Meta, or Informational
  • consensus: Yes or No (Always No for Meta or Informational)
  • created: Date the UIP was created on
  • requires: UIP number(s) (Optional field)
  • withdrawal-reason: A sentence explaining why the UIP was withdrawn. (Optional field, only needed when status is Withdrawn)

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

The author header lists the names, email addresses or usernames of the authors/owners of the UIP. 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:

Random J. User <[email protected]>

or

Random J. User (@username)

or

Random J. User (@username <[email protected]>

if the email address and/or GitHub username is included, and

Random J. User

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

While an UIP is a draft, a discussions-to header will indicate the URL where the UIP is being discussed.

The preferred discussion URL is a topic on Penumbra Forums. 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

The type header specifies the type of UIP: Standards Track, Meta, or Informational.

consensus header

The consensus header specifies whether the UIP is consensus-critical.

created header

The created header records the date that the UIP was assigned a number. Both headers should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14.

requires header

UIPs may have a requires header, indicating the UIP numbers that this UIP depends on. If such a dependency exists, this field is required.

A requires dependency is created when the current UIP cannot be understood or implemented without a concept or technical element from another UIP. Merely mentioning another UIP does not necessarily create such a dependency.

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 UIP-3.

Linking to other UIPs

References to other UIPs should follow the format UIP-N where N is the UIP number you are referring to. Each UIP that is referenced in an UIP 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 UIPs site, mirrors of the main UIP site, etc. For example, you would link to this UIP as ./uip-1.md.

Auxiliary Files

Images, diagrams and auxiliary files should be included in a subdirectory of the assets folder for that UIP as follows: assets/uip-N (where N is to be replaced with the UIP number). When linking to an image in the UIP, use relative links such as ../assets/uip-1/image.png.

Transferring UIP Ownership

It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of UIPs to a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author of the transferred UIP, 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 UIP 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 UIP. We try to build consensus around an UIP, but if that's not possible, you can always submit a competing UIP.

If you are interested in assuming ownership of an UIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the UIP editor. If the original author doesn't respond to the email in a timely manner, the UIP editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :)).

UIP Editors

The current UIP editors are

If you would like to become a UIP editor, please check UIP-2.

UIP Editor Responsibilities

For each new UIP that comes in, an editor does the following:

  • Read the UIP 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 UIP for language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.), markup (GitHub flavored Markdown), code style

If the UIP isn't ready, the editor will send it back to the author for revision, with specific instructions.

Once the UIP is ready for the repository, the UIP editor will:

  • Assign an UIP number (generally the next unused UIP number, but the decision is with the editors)
  • Merge the corresponding pull request
  • Send a message back to the UIP author with the next step.

Many UIPs are written and maintained by developers with write access to the Penumbra codebase. The UIP editors monitor UIP changes, and correct any structure, grammar, spelling, or markup mistakes we see.

The editors don't pass judgment on UIPs. We merely do the administrative & editorial part.

Style Guide

Titles

The title field in the preamble:

  • Should not include the word "standard" or any variation thereof; and
  • Should not include the UIP's number.

Descriptions

The description field in the preamble:

  • Should not include the word "standard" or any variation thereof; and
  • Should not include the UIP's number.

UIP numbers

When referring to UIPs, it must be written in the hyphenated form UIP-X where X is that UIP's assigned number.

RFC 2119 and RFC 8174

UIPs are encouraged to follow RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 for terminology and to insert the following at the beginning of the Specification section:

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and RFC 8174.

History

This document was adapted fairly directly from the Celestia CIP process.

That process was in turn derived heavily from Ethereum's EIP Process written by Hudson Jameson which is derived from Bitcoin's BIP-0001 written by Amir Taaki which in turn was derived from Python's 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 Celestia Improvement Process, and should not be bothered with technical questions specific to Penumbra, Celestia or the UIP. Please direct all comments to the UIP editors.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.