rtyler/otto
rtyler
/
otto
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Activity
otto/rfc/template.adoc

4.8 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

<html lang="en"> <head> </head>

RFC-0000: 💡 Title 💡

Table 1. Metadata

RFC

0000

Title

💡 Title 💡

Sponsor

💡 Link to github user page (if multiple, comma separated on one line). Example: User Name, User Name 2 💡

Status

Not Submitted ℹ️

Type

💡 Standards, Informational, or Process 💡

Created

💡 Date (YYYY-MM-DD) 💡
Table of Contents

Abstract

Tip

Give a short (200 word) description of the technical issue addressed.

  • Use present tense - describe what the proposal "does" (as if it were already done) not what it will do.

  • Do not go into technical details, those go in the Specification section.

  • Do not talk about history or why this needs to be done, that is part of Motivation section.

Specification

Tip

Provide a detailed specification what is being proposed. Be as technical and detailed as needed to allow new or existing developers to reasonably understand the scope/impact of an implementation.

  • Use present tense - describe what the proposal "does" (as if it were already done) not what it will do.

  • Do not discuss alternative designs that were rejected, those belong in the Reasoning section.

  • Avoid in-depth discussion or justification of design choices, that belongs in the Reasoning section.

Motivation

Tip

Explain why the existing code base or process is inadequate to address the problem that the RFC solves. This section may also contain any historal context such as how things were done before this proposal.

  • Do not discuss design choices or alternative designs that were rejected, those belong in the Reasoning section.

Reasoning

Tip

Explain why particular design decisions were made. Describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other systems. Provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.

  • Use sub-headings to organize this section for ease of readability.

  • Do not talk about history or why this needs to be done, that is part of Motivation section.

Backwards Compatibility

Tip

Describe any incompatibilities and their severity. Describe how the RFC proposes to deal with these incompatibilities.

If there are no backwards compatibility concerns, this section may simply say: There are no backwards compatibility concerns related to this proposal.

Security

Tip

Describe the security impact of this proposal. Outline what was done to identify and evaluate security issues, discuss of potential security issues and how they are mitigated or prevented, and how the RFC interacts with existing permissions, authentication, authorization, etc.

If this proposal will have no impact on security, this section may simply say: There are no security risks related to this proposal.

Testing

Tip

If the RFC involves any kind of behavioral change to code give a summary of how its correctness (and, if applicable, compatibility, security, etc.) can be tested.

In the preferred case that automated tests can be developed to cover all significant changes, simply give a short summary of the nature of these tests.

If some or all of changes will require human interaction to verify, explain why automated tests are considered impractical. Then summarize what kinds of test cases might be required: user scenarios with action steps and expected outcomes. Might behavior vary by platform (operating system, servlet container, web browser, etc.)? Are there foreseeable interactions between different permissible versions of components? Are any special tools, proprietary software, or online service accounts required to exercise a related code path (Active Directory server, GitHub login, etc.)? When will testing take place relative to merging code changes, and might retesting be required if other changes are made to this area in the future?

If this proposal requires no testing, this section may simply say: There are no testing issues related to this proposal.

Prototype Implementation

Tip

Link to any open source reference implementation of code changes for this proposal. The implementation need not be completed before the RFC is accepted but must be completed before the RFC is given "final" status.

RFCs which will not include code changes may omit this section.

References

Tip

Provide links to any related documents. This will include links to discussions on the mailing list, pull requests, and meeting notes.
Last updated 2024-05-15 06:19:52 UTC
</html>