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.
1.7 KiB
order, parent
| order | parent | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Requests for Comments
A Request for Comments (RFC) is a record of discussion on an open-ended topic related to the design and implementation of Tendermint Core, for which no immediate decision is required.
The purpose of an RFC is to serve as a historical record of a high-level discussion that might otherwise only be recorded in an ad hoc way (for example, via gists or Google docs) that are difficult to discover for someone after the fact. An RFC may give rise to more specific architectural decisions for Tendermint, but those decisions must be recorded separately in Architecture Decision Records (ADR).
As a rule of thumb, if you can articulate a specific question that needs to be answered, write an ADR. If you need to explore the topic and get input from others to know what questions need to be answered, an RFC may be appropriate.
RFC Content
An RFC should provide:
- A changelog, documenting when and how the RFC has changed.
- An abstract, briefly summarizing the topic so the reader can quickly tell whether it is relevant to their interest.
- Any background a reader will need to understand and participate in the substance of the discussion (links to other documents are fine here).
- The discussion, the primary content of the document.
The rfc-template.md file includes placeholders for these sections.