cec0a97987
* 1st version * Addressed (some of) @williambanfield's comments * Update docs/rfc/rfc-017-abci++-vote-extension-propag.md Co-authored-by: Daniel <daniel.cason@usi.ch> * Update docs/rfc/rfc-017-abci++-vote-extension-propag.md Co-authored-by: Daniel <daniel.cason@usi.ch> * Update docs/rfc/rfc-017-abci++-vote-extension-propag.md Co-authored-by: Daniel <daniel.cason@usi.ch> * Update docs/rfc/rfc-017-abci++-vote-extension-propag.md Co-authored-by: Sam Kleinman <garen@tychoish.com> * Update docs/rfc/README.md Co-authored-by: Sam Kleinman <garen@tychoish.com> * Addressed some comments * Addressed more comments. Improved description of Solution 3 * Work on 'definitions' section * Update docs/rfc/rfc-017-abci++-vote-extension-propag.md Co-authored-by: Callum Waters <cmwaters19@gmail.com> * bottom * Addressed Josef's valset-change comment. Other minor edits * Improved wording of 'disjoint valsets' case * Addressed TODOs: major revamp of various sections. First complete version. * Fixed minor wording problem * removed blank line * Update docs/rfc/rfc-017-abci++-vote-extension-propag.md Co-authored-by: Thane Thomson <connect@thanethomson.com> * Update docs/rfc/rfc-017-abci++-vote-extension-propag.md Co-authored-by: Thane Thomson <connect@thanethomson.com> * Addressed some of Thane's comments * Update docs/rfc/rfc-017-abci++-vote-extension-propag.md Co-authored-by: Thane Thomson <connect@thanethomson.com> * Update docs/rfc/rfc-017-abci++-vote-extension-propag.md Co-authored-by: Thane Thomson <connect@thanethomson.com> * Addressed outstanding comments * Addressed @williambanfield's 'catch-up message' comment * Removed TODO after confirming statesync is only run on nodes starting from scratch * Removed TODO (after checking with Jasmina) * Removed addressed TODO * Addressed Josef's feedback on case (h) * Typo * Update docs/rfc/rfc-017-abci++-vote-extension-propag.md Co-authored-by: Josef Widder <44643235+josef-widder@users.noreply.github.com> * Added log line Co-authored-by: Daniel <daniel.cason@usi.ch> Co-authored-by: Sam Kleinman <garen@tychoish.com> Co-authored-by: Callum Waters <cmwaters19@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Thane Thomson <connect@thanethomson.com> Co-authored-by: Josef Widder <44643235+josef-widder@users.noreply.github.com>
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.