AEP Purpose and Guidelines

What is an AEP?

AEP stands for Akash Enhancement Proposal. An AEP is a design document providing information to the Akash community, or describing a new feature for Akash or its processes or environment. The AEP should provide a concise technical specification of the function and a rationale for the feature. The AEP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions.

AEP Rationale

We intend AEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, for collecting community technical input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into Akash. Because the AEPs are maintained as text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal.

For Akash implementers, AEPs are a convenient way to track the progress of their implementation. Ideally, each implementation maintainer would list the AEPs that they have implemented, which gives end users a convenient way to know the current status of a given implementation or library.

AEP Types

There are three types of AEP:

• A Standard describes any change that affects most or all Akash implementations, such as a change to the network protocol, a change in block or transaction validity rules, proposed application standards/conventions, or any change or addition that affects the interoperability of applications using Akash. Furthermore, Standard AEPs can be broken down into the following categories. Standards Track AEPs consist of three parts, a design document, implementation, and finally if warranted an update to the formal specification.

  • Core - improvements requiring a consensus fork, as well as changes that are not necessarily consensus critical but may be relevant to “core dev” discussions.
  • Economics - includes improvements to Akash Network’s Economic Model with regards to Staking or Subsidy distribution.
  • Interface - includes improvements around client API specifications and standards and/ or to the primary deployment clients (Akash CLI and Akash Console).

• A Meta AEP describes a process surrounding Akash or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process AEPs are like Standards Track AEPs but apply to areas other than the Akash protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Akash’s codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational AEPs, they are more than recommendations, and users are typically not free to ignore them. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment used in Akash development. Any meta-AEP is also considered a Process AEP.

• An Informational AEP describes an Akash design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the AEPs community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational AEPs do not necessarily represent AEPs community consensus or a recommendation, so users and implementers are free to ignore Informational AEPs or follow their advice.

It is highly recommended that a single AEP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the AEP, the more successful it tends to be.

An AEP must meet specific minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be robust and must not complicate the protocol unduly.

AEP Work Flow

Shepherding an AEP

Parties involved in the process are you, the champion, or AEP author, the AEP editors, and the Akash Core Developers.

Before you begin writing a formal AEP, you should vet your idea. Ask the Akash community first if an idea is original to avoid wasting time on something that will be rejected based on prior research. It is thus recommended to open a discussion in the Akash Discussion Board and if there is significant support from the community (in terms of the quality and quantity of discussion), present the AEP live at the Steering Committee meeting. The guidelines for which AEPs will be chosen for discussion at the Steering Committee meeting are outlined in the agenda here

In addition to making sure your idea is original, it will be your role as the author to make your concept clear to reviewers and interested parties, as well as inviting editors, developers, and community to give feedback. You should try and gauge whether the interest in your AEP is commensurate with both the work involved in implementing it and how many parties will have to conform to it. Negative community feedback will be taken into consideration and may prevent your AEP from moving past the Draft stage.

Core AEPs

For Core AEPs, given that they require client implementations to be considered Final (see “AEPs Process” below), you will need to either provide an implementation for clients or convince clients to implement your AEP.

The best way to get client implementers to review your AEP is to discuss it publicly on the Discussion Board and present and discuss it live during the Steering Committee Meeting per the guidelines posted there for which discussions will be discussed.

These calls generally result in a “rough consensus” around what AEPs should be implemented. This “rough consensus” rests on the assumptions that AEPs are not contentious enough to cause a network split and that they are technically sound.

AEP Process

Following is the process that a successful non-Core AEP will move along:

[ WIP ] -> [ DRAFT ] -> [ LAST CALL ] -> [ FINAL ]

Following is the process that a successful Core AEP will move along:

[ IDEA ] -> [ DRAFT ] -> [ LAST CALL ] -> [ ACCEPTED ] -> [ FINAL ]

Each status change is requested by the AEP author and reviewed by the AEP editors. Use a pull request to update the status. Please include a link to where people should continue discussing your AEP. The AEP editors will process these requests as per the conditions below.

• Idea — Once the champion has asked the Akash community whether an idea has any chance of support, they will write a draft AEP as a pull request. Consider including an implementation if this will aid people in studying the AEP.
  • :arrow_right: Draft — If agreeable, AEP editor will assign the AEP a number (generally the issue or PR number related to the AEP) and merge your pull request. The AEP editor will not unreasonably deny an AEP.
  • :x: Draft — Reasons for denying draft status include being too unfocused, too broad, duplication of effort, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backward compatibility, or not in keeping with the Akash philosophy.
• Draft — Once the first Draft has been merged, you may submit follow-up pull requests with further changes to your Draft until you believe the AEP to be mature and ready to proceed to the next status. An AEP in draft status must be implemented to be considered for promotion to the next status (ignore this requirement for core AEPs).
  • :arrow_right: Last Call — If agreeable, the AEP editor will assign Last Call status and set a review end date (review-period-end), normally 14 days later.
  • :x: Last Call — A request for Last Call status will be denied if material changes are still expected to be made to the Draft. We hope that AEPs only enter Last Call once, so as to avoid unnecessary noise on the RSS feed.
• Last Call — This AEP will be listed prominently on the https://aeps.akash.network/ website (subscribe via RSS at last-call.xml).
  • :x: — The Last Call, which results in material changes or substantial unaddressed technical complaints, will cause the AEP to revert to Draft.
  • :arrow_right: Accepted (Core AEPs only) — A successful Last Call without material changes or unaddressed technical complaints will become Accepted.
  • :arrow_right: Final (Non-Core AEPs) — A successful Last Call without material changes or unaddressed technical complaints will become Final.
• Accepted (Core AEPs only) — This status signals that material changes are unlikely, and Akash client developers should consider this AEP for inclusion. Their process for deciding whether to encode it into their clients as part of a hard fork is not part of the AEP process.
  • :arrow_right: Draft — The Core Devs can decide to move this AEP back to the Draft status at their discretion. E.g., a major, but correctable, a flaw was found in the AEP.
  • :arrow_right: Rejected — The Core Devs can decide to mark this AEP as Rejected at their discretion. E.g., a major, but uncorrectable, a flaw was found in the AEP.
  • :arrow_right: Final — Standards Track Core AEPs must be implemented in at least three viable Akash clients before it can be considered Final. When the implementation is complete and adopted by the community, the status will be changed to “Final.”
• Final — This AEP represents the current state-of-the-art. A Final AEP should only be updated to correct errata.

Other exceptional statuses include:

• Active — Some Informational and Process AEPs may also have a status of “Active” if they are never meant to be completed. E.g., AEP 1 (this AEP).
• Abandoned — the original authors no longer pursue this AEP, or it may not be a (technically) preferred option anymore.
  • :arrow_right: Draft — Authors or new champions wishing to pursue this AEP can ask for changing it to Draft status.
• Rejected — An AEP that is fundamentally broken or a Core AEP that was rejected by the Core Devs and will not be implemented. An AEP cannot move on from this state.
• Superseded — An AEP which was previously Final but is no longer considered state-of-the-art. Another AEP will be in Final status and reference the Superseded AEP. An AEP cannot move on from this state.

What belongs in a successful AEP?

Each AEP should have the following parts:

• Preamble - RFC 822 style headers containing metadata about the AEP, including the AEP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), and the author details. See below for details.
• Abstract - A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
• Motivation (optional) - The motivation is critical for AEPs that want to change the Akash protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the AEP solves. AEP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
• Specification - The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations Akash platform.
• Rationale - The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g., how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during the discussion.
• Backward Compatibility - All AEPs that introduce backward incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The AEP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. AEP submissions without a sufficient backward compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
• Test Cases - Test cases for implementation are mandatory for AEPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other AEPs can choose to include links to test cases if applicable.
• Implementations - The implementations must be completed before any AEP is given the status “Final,” but it need not be completed before the AEP is merged as a draft. While there is merit to the approach of reaching consensus on the specification and rationale before writing code, the principle of “rough consensus and running code” is still useful when it comes to resolving many discussions of API details.
• Security Considerations - All AEPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surface risks, and can be used throughout the life cycle of the proposal. E.g., include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks, and how they are being addressed. AEP submissions missing the “Security Considerations” section will be rejected. An AEP cannot proceed to status “Final” without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
• Copyright Waiver - All AEPs must be in the public domain. See the bottom of this AEP for an example copyright waiver.

AEP Formats and Templates

AEPs should be written in [markdown] format. Image files should be included in a subdirectory of the assets folder for that AEP as follows: assets/aep-N (where N is to be replaced with the AEP number). When linking to an image in the AEP, use relative links such as ../assets/aep-1/image.png.

AEP Header Preamble

Each AEP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble, preceded and followed by three hyphens (---). This header is also termed “front matter” by Jekyll. The headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with ”*” are optional and are described below. All other headers are required.

aep: AEP number (this is determined by the AEP editor)

title: AEP title

author: a list of the author’s or authors’ name(s) and/or username(s), or name(s) and email(s). Details are below.

status: Draft | Last Call | Accepted | Final | Active | Abandoned | Rejected | Superseded

type: Standard | Informational | Meta

created: date created on

* description: short description of the AEP

* completed: date completed on

* estimated-completion: date estimated completion on

* roadmap: major | minor (will be included in roadmap when specified)

* discussions-to: a url pointing to the official discussion thread

* review-period-end: date review period ends

* category: Core | Interface | Economics (Standards Track AEPs only)

* updated: comma separated list of dates

* requires: AEP number(s)

* replaces: AEP number(s)

* superseded-by: AEP number(s)

* resolution: a url pointing to the resolution of this AEP

Headers that permit lists must separate elements with commas.

Headers requiring dates will always do so in the format of ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd).

author header

The author header optionally lists the names, email addresses or usernames of the authors/owners of the AEP. Those who prefer anonymity may use a username only, or a first name and a username. The format of the author header value must be:

Random J. User <address@dom.ain>

or

Random J. User (@username)

if the email address or GitHub username is included, and

Random J. User

if the email address is not given.

resolution header

The resolution header is required for Standards Track AEPs only. It contains a URL that should point to an email message or other web resource where the pronouncement about the AEP is made.

discussions-to header

While an AEP is a draft, a discussions-to header will indicate the mailing list or URL where the AEP is being discussed.

No discussions-to header is necessary if the AEP is being discussed privately with the author.

As a single exception, discussions-to cannot point to GitHub pull requests.

type header

The type header specifies the type of AEP: Standards Track, Meta, or Informational. If the track is Standards please include the subcategory (core, interface, or economics).

category header

The category header specifies the AEP’s category. This is required for standards-track AEPs only.

created header

The created header records the date that the AEP was assigned a number. Both headers should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14.

updated header

The updated header records the date(s) when the AEP was updated with “substantial” changes. This header is only valid for AEPs of Draft and Active status.

requires header

AEPs may have a requires header, indicating the AEP numbers that this AEP depends on.

superseded-by and replaces headers

AEPs may also have a superseded-by header indicating that an AEP has been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the number of the AEP that replaces the current document. The newer AEP must have a replaces header containing the number of the AEP that it rendered obsolete.

Auxiliary Files

AEPs may include auxiliary files such as diagrams. Such files must be named AEP-XXXX-Y.ext, where “XXXX” is the AEP number, “Y” is a serial number (starting at 1), and “ext” is replaced by the actual file extension (e.g. “png”).

Transferring AEP Ownership

It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of AEPs to a new champion. In general, we’d like to retain the original author as a co-author of the transferred AEP, but that’s really up to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is because the original author no longer has the time or interest in updating it or following through with the AEP process, or has fallen off the face of the ‘net (i.e. is unreachable or isn’t responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don’t agree with the direction of the AEP. We try to build consensus around an AEP, but if that’s not possible, you can always submit a competing AEP.

If you are interested in assuming ownership of an AEP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the AEP editor. If the original author doesn’t respond to email in a timely manner, the AEP editor will make a unilateral decision (it’s not like such decisions can’t be reversed).

AEP Editors

The current AEP editors are:

• Greg Osuri (@gosuri)
• Anil Murty (@anilmurty)
• Artur Troian (@troian)
• Cheng Wang (@lechenghiskhan)
• Adam Bozanich (@boz)

AEP Editor Responsibilities

For each new AEP that comes in, an editor does the following:

• Read the AEP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense, even if they don’t seem likely to get to final status.
• The title should accurately describe the content.
• Check the AEP for language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.), markup (GitHub flavored Markdown), code style

If the AEP isn’t ready, the editor will send it back to the author for revision, with specific instructions.

Once the AEP is ready for the repository, the AEP editor will:

• Assign an AEP number (generally the PR number or, if preferred by the author, the Issue # if there was discussion in the Issues section of this repository about this AEP)

• Merge the corresponding pull request

• Send a message back to the AEP author with the next step.

Many AEPs are written and maintained by developers with write access to the Akash codebase. The AEP editors monitor AEP changes, and correct any structure, grammar, spelling, or markup mistakes we see.

The editors don’t pass judgment on AEPs. We merely do the administrative & editorial part.

History

This document was derived heavily from Ethereum’s EIP-1 written by Martin Becze, Hudson Jameson, and others, which in turn was derived from Bitcoin’s BIP-0001. In many places, the text was copied and modified. Although Amir Taaki wrote the BIP-0001 text, Amir is not responsible for its use in the Akash Improvement Process, and should not be bothered with technical questions specific to Akash or the AEP. Please direct all comments to the AEP editors.

Bibliography

Copyright

All content herein is licensed under Apache 2.0.