CLIP (Collab.Land Improvement Proposals) Template (EIP Style Discussion Template)

[calebcgates]

Attribute	Value
clip	<to be assigned>
title	<The CLIP title is a few words, not a complete sentence>
description	<Description is one full (short) sentence>
author	<a comma separated list of the author's or authors' name + GitHub username (in parenthesis), or name and email (in angle brackets). Example, FirstName LastName (@GitHubUsername), FirstName LastName <[email protected]>, FirstName (@GitHubUsername) and GitHubUsername (@GitHubUsername)>
discussions-to	<URL>
status	Draft
type	<Standards Track, Meta, or Informational>
category (*only required for Standards Track)	<Core, Networking, Interface, or CLRC>
created	<date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
requires (*optional)	<CLIP number(s)>

This is the suggested template for new CLIPs.

Note that an CLIP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your CLIP, please use an abbreviated title in the filename, clip-draft_title_abbrev.md.

The title should be 44 characters or less. It should not repeat the CLIP number in title, irrespective of the category.

Abstract

Abstract is a multi-sentence (short paragraph) technical summary. This should be a very terse and human-readable version of the specification section. Someone should be able to read only the abstract to get the gist of what this specification does.

Motivation

The motivation section should describe the "why" of this CLIP. What problem does it solve? Why should the network want to implement this code change? What benefit does it provide to the Collab.Land ecosystem? What use cases does this CLIP address?

Specification

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

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 Collab.Land repositories (?? IDK What this means??)

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.(?? Is this a good example ??)

Backwards Compatibility (?? Is this relevant - Maybe for more complex changes ??)

All CLIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The CLIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. CLIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.

Test Cases (Optional for Initial Proposal - Required for POC)

Note: CLIPs are proposals to discuss a POC pre code integration
Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for CLIPs that are affecting consensus changes. If the test suite is too large to reasonably be included inline, then consider adding references to the project, branch, and files to which the tests have been added.

Reference Implementation (Optional for Initial Proposal - Required for POC)

An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to assist in understanding or implementing this specification. If the implementation is too large to reasonably be included inline, then consider adding references to the project, branch, and files to which the implementation has been added.

Security Considerations (Initial Considerations - Refined During POC Creation)

All CLIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surfaces risks and can be used throughout the life cycle of the proposal. E.g. include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks and how they are being addressed. CLIP submissions missing the "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. An CLIP cannot proceed to status "Final" without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.

Similar Reference Implementations

What Collab.Land features or integrations are similar to your request. By drawing parallels the community can better estimate the complexity of integration, provide access to the necessary repositories & permissions clearly, direct teams to the proper documentation & create missing documentation

Missing Categories?

CLIPs are a work in progress. If a specific category is missing that would help to further explain your feature please elaborate.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.

Document adapted from: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/edit/master/eip-template.md