| tip | <TIP number> |
|---|---|
| title | <TIP title> |
| author | <a href="mailto:author@example.com">Author Name</a> |
| discussions-to | <URL> |
| status | Draft |
| type | Standards Track |
| category | Core |
| created | <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format> |
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the TIP.
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
The motivation is critical for TIPs that want to change the TRON protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the TIP solves. TIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current TRON platforms.
The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs considered and related work, e.g., how the feature is supported in other languages.
All TIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The TIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. Submissions without a sufficient backward compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for TIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other TIPs can choose to include links to test cases if applicable.
The implementations must be completed before any TIP is given "Final" status, but it need not be completed before the TIP is accepted. While there is merit to referencing implementations, it is better to include the implementation in the TIP as code snippets or executable documentation.
All TIPs are licensed under Apache 2.0.