REP: <REP number>
Title: <Short descriptive title>
Author: <List of authors' real names and/or email addresses>
Status: Draft
Type: <Standard | Informational | Process>
Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
License: MIT
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
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 Radiant implementations.
The motivation is critical for REPs that want to change the Radiant protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol is inadequate to address the problem that the REP solves.
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.
All REPs must include a section on backwards compatibility, describing how the proposal affects existing implementations and what migration path is available.
The reference implementation must be completed before any REP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the REP is accepted. It is better to finish the specification and rationale first and then begin coding.
All REPs must discuss security implications, including potential attack vectors and mitigation strategies.
This document is licensed under the MIT License.