---
# Every document starts with a front matter in YAML enclosed by triple dashes.
# See https://jekyllrb.com/docs/front-matter/ to learn more about this concept.
caip: <to be assigned>
title: <CAIP title>
author: <a list of the author's or authors' name(s) and/or username(s), or name(s) and email(s), e.g. (use with the parentheses or triangular brackets): FirstName LastName (@GitHubUsername), FirstName LastName <[email protected]>, FirstName (@GitHubUsername) and GitHubUsername (@GitHubUsername)>
discussions-to: <URL>
status: Draft
type: <Standard | Meta | Informational>
created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
updated: <date last updated, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
requires (*optional): <CAIP number(s)>
replaces (*optional): <CAIP number(s)>
---
This is the suggested template for new CAIPs.
Note that an CAIP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your CAIP, please use an abbreviated title in the filename, eip-draft_title_abbrev.md.
The title should be 42 characters or less.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the CAIP.
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
The motivation is critical for CAIP. It should clearly explain why the state of the art is inadequate to address the problem that the CAIP solves. CAIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
The technical specification should describe the standard in detail. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations.
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 may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.-->
All CAIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The CAIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. CAIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
Please add test cases here if applicable.
Links to external resources that help understanding the CAIP better. This can e.g. be links to existing implementations.
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.