CIP: Protocol Parameters #45
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for this PR @kevinhammond - looks like a very useful CIP to add - tentatively added for review next CIP Editors meeting on Dec 8.
CIP-Draft-Initial-Params/Initial.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ | |||
| ## Preamble | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No need to explicitly add a "preamble" header
CIP-Draft-Initial-Params/Initial.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Specification | ||
|
|
||
| The initial protocol parameters are given below (in JSON format): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe add a clear disclaimer that the values below may not reflect the current mainnet values (as for k for example).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've included the changes, so I don't think a disclaimer is needed now. However, someone will need to maintain it!
CIP-Draft-Initial-Params/Initial.md
Outdated
| * License: <abbreviation for approved license(s)> | ||
| * License-Code: <abbreviation for code under different approved license(s)> | ||
| * Post-History: <dates of postings to Cardano Dev Forum, or link to thread> | ||
| * Requires: <CIP number(s)> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can remove these unused fields
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK
You can remove these unused fields
OK
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM.
I've double-checked the params match the initial Shelley ones (both updateable and non-updateable).
We should add a paragraph somewhere to say how to propose updated param values: as new CIPs not as edits to this CIP. The rationale being that CIPs are proposals, and there can be many conflicting ones, and they may or may not be adopted. This CIP should remain informational on what the initial and current params are, and ideally the history of changes.
1. Removed CIP preamble as requested by Sebastien 2. Added section on how to update the parameters in future, as requested by the committee.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM.
I've double-checked the params match the initial Shelley ones (both updateable and non-updateable).
We should add a paragraph somewhere to say how to propose updated param values: as new CIPs not as edits to this CIP. The rationale being that CIPs are proposals, and there can be many conflicting ones, and they may or may not be adopted. This CIP should remain informational on what the initial and current params are, and ideally the history of changes.
Added a paragraph at the start. I propose to leave the committee to adjust the text as needed.
CIP-Draft-Initial-Params/Initial.md
Outdated
| * License: <abbreviation for approved license(s)> | ||
| * License-Code: <abbreviation for code under different approved license(s)> | ||
| * Post-History: <dates of postings to Cardano Dev Forum, or link to thread> | ||
| * Requires: <CIP number(s)> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK
You can remove these unused fields
OK
Fixed table formatting in change paragraph.
OK. I was asked to remove the header I thought... I'll add it back |
Added back header
|
Added back the header. I don't know the CIP number, of course - someone else will need to add that. Likewise comments if there is a URI that should be referred to. |
kevinhammond
changed the title
|
Minor reservations about jumping directly as "Active" - should be merged shortly once consensus is reached (status might be tweaked) |
setting next available non-reserved number, moving status to 'Draft' (internal discussion happening)
CIP moved to proper dir
* Create 2022-05-24.md * Update 2022-05-24.md * Update 2022-05-24.md * Update 2022-05-24.md * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <rphair@cosd.com> * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <rphair@cosd.com> * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <rphair@cosd.com> * Update 2022-05-24.md * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md * Update BiweeklyMeetings/2022-05-24.md Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <rphair@cosd.com> Co-authored-by: Matthias Benkort <5680256+KtorZ@users.noreply.github.com>
This was suggested by the QuantStamp Auditors. The idea is to provide a base CIP that we should use as the root of all future protocol parameter changes (including the forthcoming change to the k parameter).
I have checked the original draft with Jared Corduan (IOHK Ledger team lead) and Duncan Coutts, and I have uploaded it to the Cardano Forum. There have been 48 views, but no comments so far. I will continue to monitor this for community comments, but since it is not proposing any changes, I would expect discussion to be fairly minimal.