Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 10, 2022. It is now read-only.

Latest commit

 

History

History
110 lines (81 loc) · 4 KB

template.md

File metadata and controls

110 lines (81 loc) · 4 KB
Raw

Title (Ex. 00000: RFC Topic)

  • Authors: your name -- email is optional
  • Status: PROPOSED
  • Since: 20YY-MM-DD (date you submit your PR)
  • Status Note: (explanation of current status)
  • Supersedes: (link to anything this RFC supersedes)
  • Start Date: 20YY-MM-DD (date you started working on this idea)
  • Tags: feature, protocol

Summary

One paragraph explanation of the feature.

Motivation

Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome?

Tutorial

Explain the proposal as if it were already implemented and you were teaching it to another Enarx contributor or user. That generally means:

  • Introducing new named concepts.
  • Explaining the feature largely in terms of examples.
  • Explaining how Enarx contributors and/or users should think about the feature, and how it should impact the way they would use Enarx.
  • If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or migration guidance.

Some RFCs may be more aimed at contributors (e.g consensus on internals); others may be more aimed at users.

Reference

Provide guidance for implementers, procedures to inform testing, interface definitions, formal function prototypes, error codes, diagrams, and other technical details that might be looked up. Strive to guarantee that:

  • Interactions with other features are clear.
  • Implementation trajectory is well defined.
  • Corner cases are dissected by example.

Drawbacks

Why should we not do this?

Rationale and alternatives

  • Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs?
  • What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them?
  • What is the impact of not doing this?

Prior art

Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. A few examples of what this can include are:

  • Does this feature exist in other TEE-based systems and what experience have their community had?
  • For other teams: What lessons can we learn from other attempts?
  • Papers: Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? If you have some relevant papers to refer to, this can serve as a more detailed theoretical background.

This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other implementers, provide readers of your proposal with a fuller picture. If there is no prior art, that is fine - your ideas are interesting to us whether they are brand new or if they are an adaptation from other communities.

Note that while precedent set by other communities is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC here.

Unresolved questions

  • What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged?
  • What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization?
  • What related issues do you consider out of scope for this proposal that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this doc?

Implementations

If your proposal is related to code and you have an early implementation, mention it here and link to it.

Future Possibilities

Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be and how it would affect the project as a whole. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible interactions with the project in your proposal. Also consider how the this all fits into the roadmap for the project and of the relevant sub-team.

This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the RFC you are writing but otherwise related.

If you have tried and cannot think of any future possibilities, you may simply state that you cannot think of anything.

Note that having something written down in the future-possibilities section is not a reason to accept the current or a future RFC; such notes should be in the section on motivation or rationale in this or subsequent RFCs. The section merely provides additional information.