This LIP defines the standard structure, required sections, header fields, and lifecycle statuses for LEA Improvement Proposals (LIPs). Establishing a consistent format and process facilitates clear communication, effective review, and organized tracking of proposed changes to the LEA protocol and ecosystem. This document itself follows the proposed standard.
As the LEA project evolves, a standardized process for proposing, discussing, and tracking changes becomes essential. Currently, there is no formal definition for how improvement proposals should be structured or managed. This leads to potential inconsistencies, makes proposals harder to compare and review, and complicates tracking their progress. LIP-3 aims to rectify this by establishing a clear template and defined lifecycle for all future LIPs, improving clarity and efficiency in the development process.
All LEA Improvement Proposals MUST adhere to the following Markdown structure and include the defined header fields and sections.
Each LIP must begin with a header section containing the following fields:
3).Following the header, each LIP must include these sections:
The Layer field categorizes the LIP. Defined layers are:
The Status field tracks the LIP's lifecycle stage:
The following Markdown code block represents the standard template to be used for new LIPs:
* **LIP: [LIP Number]**
* **Layer: [See Definitions Below]**
* **Title: [Concise Title of the Proposal]**
* **Author: [List of Author(s) / Handle(s)]**
* **Discussions-To: [Link to Forum Thread, Issue Tracker, etc. (Optional)]**
* **Created: [YYYY-MM-DD]**
* **Updated: [YYYY-MM-DD (Optional)]**
* **Requires: [LIP Number(s) (Optional)]**
* **Replaces: [LIP Number(s) (Optional)]**
* **Superseded-By: [LIP Number(s) (Optional)]**
* **Status: [See Definitions Below]**
## Abstract
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed and the proposed change.
## Motivation
Explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem solved by this LIP. It should clearly state the proposal's purpose and rationale.
## Specification
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 the LEA blockchain. Include any modifications to existing structures (like CTE tags/fields), new data structures, algorithms, or protocols.
## Rationale
Explain the reasoning behind the design decisions in the specification. Why were particular design choices made? What alternatives were considered, and why were they not chosen? This section should cover engineering trade-offs.
## Backwards Compatibility
Discuss any backwards compatibility implications. Does this change break existing rules or implementations? How will the transition be handled? Proposals that are not backward compatible must specify how the incompatibility is justified.
## Security Considerations
Describe any security implications or considerations related to this LIP. This includes potential attack vectors, impacts on privacy, or changes to the system's overall security assumptions.
## Copyright
All LIPs must be licensed under an appropriate open-source license (e.g., MIT License).
Adopting a standardized structure based on common practices in other blockchain projects (like BIPs/EIPs) provides immediate clarity and familiarity. The chosen sections cover the essential aspects needed to understand, evaluate, and implement a proposal. Defining layers helps categorize proposals, while defined statuses provide a clear view of the proposal lifecycle. Making this definition itself a LIP ensures the process is self-documenting and can be updated via the same mechanism if needed.
This LIP defines a process and does not directly impact the LEA protocol's technical backwards compatibility. It applies to LIPs created after its acceptance.
Standardizing the proposal process does not introduce direct technical vulnerabilities. However, adherence to the process, particularly the Security Considerations section within each LIP, is crucial for maintaining the overall security of the LEA protocol as it evolves. Ensuring clear documentation and review helps prevent unintentional security issues.
This LIP is licensed under the MIT License, in alignment with the main LEA Project License.