docs: CID spec should follow IPIP process #51
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Clarification from community call today:
|
aschmahmann
approved these changes
Aug 1, 2022
QUGL-98-06-15
approved these changes
Aug 2, 2022
| @@ -163,6 +163,14 @@ Yes, kind of! like a file extension, the multicodec identifier establishes the f | |||
|
|
|||
| We are figuring this out at this time. It will likely be a table of formats for secure distributed systems. So far, we want to address: IPFS's original protobuf format, the new IPLD CBOR format, git, bitcoin, and ethereum objects. | |||
|
|
|||
| > **Q. What is the process for updating CID specification (e.g., adding a new version)?** | |||
vmx
approved these changes
Aug 2, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR clarifies the CID spec governance by pointing at IPIP process from ipfs/specs repo.
I suggest reusing IPIP because don't have anything better, and something is better than no process at all, but other ideas are welcome.
Rationale
CID specification is extremely important for IPFS ecosystem, and we need a clear policy how spec change proposals (namely, proposing new versions, like #49) should be handled now and in the future.
We need to have a policy for CID and other Mutliformats, but since CID is the only one that has the concept of versions, let's scope this to CID repo for now.
Why IPIP?
The IPIP template provides prompts around key areas that need to be filled, which ensures the bare minimum structure and context that gets everyone up-to-speed, including a summary of relevant prior discussions.
This allows implementers and the wider IPFS community to evaluate, provide more meaningful feedback, and reach a rough consensus around a proposal.