---
kip: <to be assigned>
title: <KIP title>
author: <a list of the author's or authors' name(s) and/or username(s), or name(s) and email(s), e.g. (use with the parentheses or triangular brackets): FirstName LastName (@GitHubUsername), FirstName LastName <[email protected]>, FirstName (@GitHubUsername) and GitHubUsername (@GitHubUsername)>
discussions-to: <URL>
status: Draft
type: <Standards Track | Meta | Informational>
category (*only required for Standard Track): <Core | Networking | Storage | Interface | KCT | SDK | Application>
created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
requires (*optional): <KIP number(s)>
replaces (*optional): <KIP number(s)>
---
This is the suggested template for new KIPs.
Note that a KIP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your KIP, please use an abbreviated title in the filename, kip-draft_title_abbrev.md.
The title should be 44 characters or less.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the KIP.
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
The motivation is critical for KIPs that want to change the Klaytn protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the KIP solves. KIP 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 Klaytn platforms (klaytn).
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 discussion.
All KIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The KIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. KIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright. The authors should answer the question: "Does this KIP require a hard fork?"
Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for KIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other KIPs can choose to include links to test cases if applicable.
The implementations must be completed before any KIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the KIP is accepted. 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.
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.