AIP: 1 Title: AIP Purpose and Guidelines Author: Shafil Alam <[email protected]> Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/AvianNetwork/aips Status: Final Type: Process Created: 2022-08-29
AIP stands for Avian Improvement Proposal. A AIP is a design document providing information to the Avian community, or describing a new feature for Avian or its processes or environment. The AIP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature.
We intend AIPs 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 Avian. The AIP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions.
Because the AIPs 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 AIP:
- A Standards Track AIP describes any change that affects most or all Avian 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 Avian.
- An Informational AIP describes a Avian design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Avian community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational AIPs do not necessarily represent a Avian community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore Informational AIPs or follow their advice.
- A Process AIP describes a process surrounding Avian, or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process AIPs are like Standards Track AIPs but apply to areas other than the Avian protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Avian's codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational AIPs, 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 Avian development. Any meta-AIP is also considered a Process AIP.
The AIP process begins with a new idea for Avian. Each potential AIP must have a champion -- someone who writes the AIP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The AIP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is AIP-able.
Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a AIP is meant to save both the potential author and the wider community time. Many ideas have been brought forward for changing Avian that have been rejected for various reasons. Asking the Avian 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 Avian is used. Small enhancements or patches often don't need standardisation between multiple projects; these don't need a AIP and should be injected into the relevant Avian development work flow with a patch submission to the applicable Avian issue tracker.
Once the champion has asked the Avian community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft AIP should be presented to the community. This gives the author a chance to flesh out the draft AIP to make it properly formatted, of high quality, and to address additional concerns about the proposal. A draft must be written in AIP style as described below, else it will be sent back without further regard until proper formatting rules are followed.
AIP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on both the initial idea and the AIP 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 AIP author accept private comments in the early design phases, setting up a wiki page or git repository, etc. AIP authors should use their discretion here.
It is highly recommended that a single AIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the AIP, the more successful it tends to be. If in doubt, split your AIP into several well-focused ones.
The AIP editors assign AIP numbers and change their status. Please send all AIP-related email to the AIP editor, which is listed under AIP Editors below. Also see AIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow. The AIP editor reserves the right to reject AIP proposals if they appear too unfocused or too broad.
Authors MUST NOT self assign AIP numbers, but should use an alias such as "AIP-johndoe-votingimprovement" which includes the author's name/nick and the AIP subject.
If the AIP editor approves, he will assign the AIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, give it status "Draft", and add it to the AIPs git repository. The AIP editor will not unreasonably deny a AIP. Reasons for denying AIP 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 Avian philosophy. For a AIP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete descAIPtion 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 AIP 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 AIPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. The AIP should be reviewed and accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a reference implementation will aid people in studying the AIP. Standards Track AIPs must include an implementation -- in the form of code, a patch, or a URL to same -- before it can be considered Final.
Once a AIP 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 AIP can also be assigned status "Deferred". The AIP author or editor can assign the AIP this status when no progress is being made on the AIP. Once a AIP is deferred, the AIP editor can re-assign it to draft status.
A AIP 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.
AIPs can also be superseded by a different AIP, rendering the original obsolete. This is intended for Informational AIPs, where version 2 of an API can replace version 1.
The possible paths of the status of AIPs are as follows:
Some Informational and Process AIPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. AIP 1 (this AIP).
Each AIP should have the following parts:
- Preamble -- RFC 822 style headers containing meta-data about the AIP, including the AIP number, a short descAIPtive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and optionally the contact info for each author, etc.
- Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
- Copyright/public domain -- Each AIP must either be explicitly labelled as placed in the public domain (see this AIP as an example) or licensed under the Open Publication License.
- 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 Avian platforms.
- Motivation -- The motivation is critical for AIPs that want to change the Avian protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the AIP solves. AIP 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 AIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The AIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. AIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
- Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must be completed before any AIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the AIP 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 Avian protocol.
AIPs should be written in mediawiki or markdown format.
Each AIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with "*" are optional and are described below. All other headers are required.
AIP: <AIP number>
Title: <AIP title>
Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
* Discussions-To: <email address>
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Rejected |
Withdrawn | Final | Superseded>
Type: <Standards Track | Informational | Process>
Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
* Post-History: <dates of postings to Avian forum>
* Replaces: <AIP number>
* Superseded-By: <AIP number>
* Resolution: <url>
The Author header lists the names, and optionally the email addresses of all the authors/owners of the AIP. The format of the Author header value must be
Random J. User <[email protected]>
if the email address is included, and just
Random J. User
if the address is not given.
If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following RFC 2822 continuation line conventions.
Note: The Resolution header is required for Standards Track AIPs only. It contains a URL that should point to an email message or other web resource where the pronouncement about the AIP is made.
While a AIP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft phase), a Discussions-To header will indicate the mailing list or URL where the AIP is being discussed. No Discussions-To header is necessary if the AIP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the Avian forum.
The Type header specifies the type of AIP: Standards Track, Informational, or Process.
The Created header records the date that the AIP was assigned a number, while Post-History is used to record the dates of when new versions of the AIP are posted to Avian forum. Both headers should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14.
AIPs may have a Requires header, indicating the AIP numbers that this AIP depends on.
AIPs may also have a Superseded-By header indicating that a AIP has been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the number of the AIP that replaces the current document. The newer AIP must have a Replaces header containing the number of the AIP that it rendered obsolete.
AIPs may include auxiliary files such as diagrams. Image files should be included in a subdirectory for that AIP. Auxiliary files must be named AIP-XXXX-Y.ext, where "XXXX" is the AIP number, "Y" is a serial number (starting at 1), and "ext" is replaced by the actual file extension (e.g. "png").
It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of AIPs to a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author of the transferred AIP, 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 AIP process, or has fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don't agree with the direction of the AIP. We try to build consensus around a AIP, but if that's not possible, you can always submit a competing AIP.
If you are interested in assuming ownership of a AIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the AIP editor. If the original author doesn't respond to email in a timely manner, the AIP editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :).
The current AIP editor is Shafil who can be contacted at [email protected].
The AIP editor subscribes to the Avian forums. All AIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to [email protected].
For each new AIP that comes in an editor does the following:
- Read the AIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to be accepted.
- The title should accurately describe the content.
- Edit the AIP for language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.), markup (for reST AIPs), code style.
Once the AIP is ready for the repository it should be submitted as a "pull request" to the https://github.com/AvianNetwork/aips repository on GitHub where it may get further feedback.
The AIP editor will:
- Assign a AIP number (almost always just the next available number, but sometimes it's a special/joke number, like 69 or 420) in the pull request comments.
- Merge the pull request when the author is ready (allowing some time for further peer review).
- List the AIP in README.mediawiki
- Send email back to the AIP author with next steps (post to appropriate forum).
This document was derived heavily from Python's PEP-0001 and BIP. 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 Avian Improvement Process, and should not be bothered with technical questions specific to Avian or the AIP process. Please direct all comments to the AIP editors or the Avian forums. Additionally, this process was also derived heavily from the BIP process for which we thank Amir Taaki.