Communication in Tendermint among consensus nodes, applications, and operator
tools all use different message formats and transport mechanisms. In some
cases there are multiple options. Having all these options complicates both the
code and the developer experience, and hides bugs. To support a more robust,
trustworthy, and usable system, we should document which communication paths
are essential, which could be removed or reduced in scope, and what we can
improve for the most important use cases.
This document proposes a variety of possible improvements of varying size and
scope. Specific design proposals should get their own documentation.
This ADR restores a variation of the old Request for Comments documentation
that we previously used. The proposal differs from the original formulation,
and does not replace ADRs.
Per conversations earlier today, we'll consider all proposed implementation changes part of the ADR process rather than the RFC process (which will remain, for now, on the spec; this may get incorporated instead into the burgeoning "CIPS" process).
This change renames RFC 1 to ADR 66, leaving space for the not-yet-merged ADR 65.
