feat: update and fixes to rfcs part 1#162
Conversation
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request updates various RFC documents to reflect architectural changes, including renaming the Digital Assets Network (DAN) to Ootle, updating Proof of Work algorithms, and adding an HTTP API specification. The review identified two issues: a typo in a percentage notation in the overview document and a missing space in a domain-separated hash description in the consensus document.
SWvheerden
force-pushed
the
sw_massive_edits
branch
from
e175d5c to
7d7ea35
Compare
Deploying rfcs with
|
| Latest commit: |
8681728
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://6ae15c5a.rfcs-6p3.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://sw-massive-edits.rfcs-6p3.pages.dev |
SWvheerden
force-pushed
the
sw_massive_edits
branch
from
7d7ea35 to
36d67a6
Compare
Kelketek
left a comment
Kelketek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These RFCs will each need their names updated, their headers set, and their changelogs updated. One unanswered question here is what the RFC subtype indicators will be.
A TIP that sets groundrules for RFCs, such as the subtype indicators, license, and action definitions (MUST, SHALL, etc) would probably be good to create and link to via stock blurb at the top of these files. I could draft something there if you'd like.
| The DAN itself is made up of two conceptual levels. On the more fundamental level, the consensus layer uses | ||
| Cerberus and emergent HotStuff to reach consensus on state changes in the DAN in a highly scalable, decentralised way. | ||
| The Ootle itself is made up of two conceptual levels. On the more fundamental level, the consensus layer uses | ||
| Cerberus and emergent HotStuff to reach consensus on state changes in the Ootle in a highly scalable, decentralised way. |
|
|
||
| Tari Improvement Proposals are proposals for improving the Tari project generally. They are distinct from RFCs in that | ||
| they are product, practice, and community improvement proposals rather than protocol or algorithm proposals. | ||
| they are products, practices, and community improvement proposals as well as contain technical RFCs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It occurs to me that the wording in this document still assumes that RFCs aren't TIPs and are completely separate-- that's because the text changes about TIPs in this document landed before TIP-1 did, so we hadn't incorperated them both. Could you update the phrasing here and above (previous section) to make this more clear?
Kelketek
left a comment
Kelketek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SWvheerden I'm good with this now-- though let's continue discussion on the changelog item on the forum. We can make a follow-up PR after we've settled on a solution.
2 participants
Updates and fixes to rfcs, part 1 of many,
This includes a new about explaing the process