Skip to content
Permalink
main
Switch branches/tags

specs/IPIP/0001-lightweight-improvement-proposal-process.md

Go to file
 
 
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
IPIP 0001: Lightweight Improvement Process for IPFS Specifications Summary Motivation Detailed design Opening an improvement proposal (IPIP) Reviewing IPIPs Merging IPIPs Long-term plan Design rationale User benefit Compatibility Security Alternatives Copyright
147 lines (104 sloc) 5.8 KB
Raw Blame
Open in GitHub Desktop

IPIP 0001: Lightweight Improvement Process for IPFS Specifications

Summary

This InterPlanetary Improvement Proposal (IPIP) introduces a lightweight "request for comments/change" process for the IPFS specifications repository.

Motivation

Today, protocol design discussions often take place in a repository of an IPFS implementation. These conversations are unintentionally obscured from the useful input of Specs Stewards, other implementations, service operators and the wider IPFS Community.

The IPFS Project needs a mechanism for proposing and evaluating specification improvements that are not tied to a specific programming language or implementation of IPFS.

Detailed design

Adopt an informal IPIP process for the ipfs/specs repository, providing a minimal structure for opening, reviewing, and merging specification changes.

The purpose of IPIP documents is to document motivation behind the change applied to the spec. IPIP is not to be the spec itself.

To illustrate:

  • In order to understand how (hypothetical) WebDAV Gateway works, one would read contents of specs in ipfs/specs/WEBDAV_GATEWAY.md.
  • IPIP in ipfs/specs/IPIP/000N-webdav-gateway.md would only include Motivation and explainer why certain design decisions were made at a certain point in time. Initial IPIP/000N-webdav-gateway.md would explain why we added WebDAV spec in the first place.
  • If we realize the spec has a bug, we will evaluate the impact: adding more details, test vectors, and editorials/cosmetics can be fixed without IPIP.
  • Things that could cause an interop issues require a PR with fix and IPIP in ipfs/specs/IPIP/000M-webdav-fix-for-foo.md explaining why we make the breaking spec change, compatibility/migration considerations etc.

Opening an improvement proposal (IPIP)

Changes to IPFS specifications can be proposed by opening a Git pull-request (PR) against the ipfs/specs repository.

In addition to specification changes, such PR must include a short IPIP document based on the template in ipfs/specs/IPIP/0000-template.md.

When a new specification file is added to the repo, it should be based on the template at ipfs/specs/template.md.

Reviewing IPIPs

Specs Stewards will review new IPIP PRs during periodical (best-effort) triage.

IPFS Community is encouraged to participate in the review process.

IPIP can be either:

  • merged,
  • rejected (PR close without merging),
  • deferred (converting PR back to a draft).

The final decision belongs to Specs Stewards.

Merging IPIPs

PR with a IPIP can be merged only after two Specs Stewards approve it and there are no objections from other Stewards.

IPIP number is assigned before the PR merge.

IPIP author and two approving Specs Stewards are added to CODEOWNERS file to be automatically asked to review any future changes to files added or modified by the IPIP.

Long-term plan

Specs Stewards will adjust the process based on usage patterns.

Design rationale

We want to empower IPFS community members and implementers with the ability to propose changes in a well-known way, without introducing much overhead.

Guiding principles:

  • No new tooling
    • Reuse Markdown, Git, and existing PR review process
  • Convention over Byzantine process
    • Proposing a new IPIP should have low cognitive overhead, allowing us to focus on specs
    • Reuse existing Github developer accounts and reputation attached to them
    • One should be able to create a valid IPIP without reading a long explainer like this one. Looking at past IPIPs, and then copying a template and opening a PR with the proposal should be more than enough.

User benefit

End users will indirectly benefit from a healthy IPIP process being in place:

  • IPFS community members will be able to use IPIP drafts for evaluating ideas before investing time into building new things.
  • The bar for creating a brand new IPFS implementation will be lowered, and existing implementations will be able to propose improvements for others to adopt. This removes the soft vendor lock-in present when the oldest implementation is considered as the reference standard and source of truth.
  • IPFS implementers will have a better understanding of why certain design decisions were made, and have both historical context and language-agnostic specifications with test fixtures ready for use in their project, ensuring a high level of interoperability.
  • More eyes looking at specifications will improve overall quality over time.

As a result, IPFS will become easier to implement, useful in more contexts, and benefit more people.

Compatibility

Existing contents of ipfs/specs repository act as the initial state against which IPIP PRs can be opened.

Security

Existing Git-based review infrastructure, user accounts and reputation system will be reused.

Merging IPIP will require approval from two Specs Stewards.

Alternatives

  • Maintaining the status quo (no IPIP process) is not acceptable, as we want to move specification discussions away from repositories of specific implementations. We need a mechanism for discussing improvements that is not tied to specific implementation or language.
  • Creating more elaborate IPIP process. This comes with increased overhead and risk. Introducing a complex process requires deeper understanding of community needs and pitfalls of preexisting processes, and since we don't have any process in place, starting light, limits the risk.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.