templateCategory (RFC-000)

Document Maintainers: Andi Gabriel Tan 2024. List of other contributors in Annex. 1.

Copyright: MIT license

Copyright © 2018-2024 Axiologic Research and Contributors.

This document is licensed under MIT license.


The purpose of this RFC is to provide a Google Docs template that will be used to propose new RFCs.

As a reminder, “a RFC is authored by individuals or groups of engineers and computer scientists in the form of a memorandum describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet-connected systems. It is submitted either for peer review or to convey new concepts or information”[1].

To submit a new proposal, create a copy of this template (here), modify it and send a sharing link to opendsu@axiologic.net

1. RFC template main proposition

1.1. RFC Headers

1.1.2. RFC Subject

Subject of the RFC should replace “Template”

1.1.3. RFC Identifier

The correct identifier of the RFC should replace 000

1.1.4. RFC Categories

There is currently five different categories:

Category Description
OpenDSU SDK JavaScript client-side standard APIs
Specifications OpenDSU architecture specifications
3 subcategories(DSU, DSU Types, KeySSI)
Best practices Current best practices
Recommendations Recommendations for implementation
Rules Rules of the OpenDSU ecosystem

1.1.5. RFC Status

We defined a set of different status inspired from Maker Governance[2] where community voting is replaced by a period of community feedback and the review of OpenDSU governance board:

Draft The RFC is being drafted
Feedback A period where community can review the RFC (comment Docs)
Submitted Under review by the governing body of OpenDSU
Rejected The RFC has been rejected
Accepted The proposal has been accepted and will be implemented
Enacted RFC has been processed and is part of the official codebase
Obsolete/Replaced The RFC is not needed anymore or has been replaced

The figures above represent the lifecycle of a RFC:

Figure 1: RFC lifecycle

Figure 2: RFC overwriting

1.1.6. RFC Contributors

Name and mail address of RFC contributors

1.1.7. RFC Table of Content

RFC must contain a table of contents

1.2. RFC Content

1.2.1. Abstract

RFCs must contain an abstract (500 words max) that describes the proposal

1.2.2. Main proposition

The main RFC proposition, you are free to use any format you like to make an adapted proposal for the selected subject.

1.2.3. References

Use references to improve and illustrate your proposal. To add a reference select the text you want to add reference for and click on Insert>Footnote.

Current Editors Email
Sînică Alboaie sinica.alboaie@axiologic.net
Cosmin Ursache cosmin@axiologic.net
Teodor Lupu teodor@axiologic.net
Andi-Gabriel Țan andi@axiologic.net
Contributors Axiologic Research Email
Adrian Ganga adrian@axiologic.net
Andi-Gabriel Țan andi@axiologic.net
Cosmin Ursache cosmin@axiologic.net
Daniel Sava daniel@axiologic.net
Nicoleta Mihalache nicoleta@axiologic.net
Valentin Gérard valentin@axiologic.net
PrivateSky Contributors Email
Alex Sofronie alsofronie@gmail.com (DPO)
Cosmin Ursache cos.ursache@gmail.com (UAIC)
Daniel Sava sava.dumitru.daniel@gmail.com (HVS, AQS)
Daniel Visoiu visoiu.daniel.g@gmail.com (SGiant)
Lenuța Alboaie lalboaie@gmail.com (UAIC)
Rafael Mastaleru rafael@rms.ro (RMS)
Sînică Alboaie salboaie@gmail.com (UAIC)
Vlad Balmos vlad.balmos@gmail.com (Code932)
PharmaLedger Contributors Email
Ana Balan bam@rms.ro (RMS)
Bogdan Mastahac mab@rms.ro (RMS)
Cosmin Ursache cos@rms.ro (RMS)
Rafael Mastaleru raf@rms.ro (RMS)

[1] RFC origin and definition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments

[2] Maker Governance Proposal System - https://vote.makerdao.com/