update NEP template #474
update NEP template #474
Conversation
|
Your Render PR Server URL is https://nomicon-pr-474.onrender.com. Follow its progress at https://dashboard.render.com/static/srv-cglkjl9euhlngjk2piu0. |
| @@ -70,51 +70,67 @@ The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and exp | |||
|
|
|||
| [Explicitly outline any security concerns in relation to the NEP, and potential ways to resolve or mitigate them. At the very least, well-known relevant threats must be covered, e.g. person-in-the-middle, double-spend, XSS, CSRF, etc.] | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Drawbacks (Optional) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
drawbacks is merged into consequences.
| Moderator, when moving a NEP to review stage, should update the Pull Request description to include the | ||
| review summary, example: | ||
|
|
||
| ```markdown |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added a template to allow easy copy-paste
| @@ -70,51 +70,67 @@ The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and exp | |||
|
|
|||
| [Explicitly outline any security concerns in relation to the NEP, and potential ways to resolve or mitigate them. At the very least, well-known relevant threats must be covered, e.g. person-in-the-middle, double-spend, XSS, CSRF, etc.] | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Drawbacks (Optional) | |||
| ## Alternatives | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
alternatives should be before final Consequences
| | 1 | | | | | ||
| | 2 | | | | | ||
| > Template for Subject Matter Experts review for this version: | ||
| > Status: New | Ongoing | Resolved |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see a need to separate "new" and "ongoing". Historically, we used "resolved" and "unresolved". Do you have concerns about those?
Note, most of the time, SMEs do not have permission to edit the NEP document (submitted PR).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, whatever makes sense. Let's check other opinions before updating.
| ### Backwards Compatibility | ||
|
|
||
| [All NEPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. Author must explain a proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. Submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, it is good to highlight this objective as a standalone section.
frol
added
WG-unknown
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for proposing these changes @robert-zaremba. The template flows better this way.
nep-0001.md)