Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
210 lines (175 loc) · 13.3 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

210 lines (175 loc) · 13.3 KB
Raw

Stellar Ecosystem Proposals (SEPs)

SEP Tracks

  • Informational — A SEP on the Informational track is one that is open to adoption by the ecosystem, but has not been formally standardized by SDF, and is not endorsed by SDF for adoption. Typically a SEP can start as Informational to gain traction within the ecosystem before moving to the Standards track.
  • Standard — A SEP on the Standards track is one that aims for formal standardization and endorsement by SDF for adoption. Typically a SEP Standard has a higher bar towards acceptance, and it requires approval by 2 SDF members of the SEP Team.

SEP Status Terms

  • Draft - A SEP that is currently open for consideration and actively being discussed.
  • Awaiting Decision — A mature and ready SEP that is ready for approval by the SEP Team. If enough the approval requirements are met by SEP team members, the SEP will move towards FCP. Otherwise, it'll regress to a Draft.
  • FCP — A SEP that has entered a Final Comment Period (FCP). After one week has passed, during which any new concerns should be addressed, the SEP's status will become Active.
  • Active - An actively maintained SEP that is intended for immediate adoption by the entire ecosystem. Additional updates may be made without changing the SEP number.
  • Final - A finalized SEP will not be changed aside from minor errata. For a proposal to be a candidate to be made Final it must be being used in live products.

Additional Statuses

  • Deprecated - A SEP that was previously on an active track but has been deprecated and is no longer suggested for use. There may be legacy usage of a deprecated SEP.
  • Rejected - A Standards SEP that has been formally rejected by the SEP Team, and will not be implemented.
  • Superseded: [New Final SEP] - A SEP that which was previously final but has been superseded by a new, final SEP. Both SEPs should reference each other.

List of Proposals

Number Title Author Track Status
SEP-0001 Stellar Info File SDF Standard Active
SEP-0002 Federation Protocol SDF Standard Final
SEP-0004 Tx Status Endpoint SDF Standard Final
SEP-0005 Key Derivation Methods for Stellar Accounts SDF Standard Final
SEP-0006 Deposit and Withdrawal API SDF Standard Active (Interactive components are deprecated in favor of SEP-24)
SEP-0007 URI Scheme to facilitate delegated signing Interstellar Standard Final
SEP-0008 Regulated Assets Interstellar Standard Final
SEP-0009 Standard KYC Fields SDF Standard Active
SEP-0010 Stellar Authentication Sergey Nebolsin, Tom Quisel Standard Active
SEP-0011 Txrep: Human-Readable Low-Level Representation of Stellar Transactions David Mazières Standard Active
SEP-0012 KYC API Interstellar Standard Active
SEP-0014 Dynamic Asset Metadata OrbitLens, Paul Tiplady Standard Draft
SEP-0018 Data Entry Namespaces Mister.Ticot Standard Active
SEP-0020 Self-verification of validator nodes Johan Stén Standard Active
SEP-0023 Muxed Account Strkeys David Mazières, Tomer Weller, Leigh McCulloch, Alfonso Acosta Standard Active
SEP-0024 Hosted Deposit and Withdrawal SDF Standard Active
SEP-0028 XDR Base64 Encoding SDF Standard Final
SEP-0029 Account Memo Requirements OrbitLens, Tomer Weller, Leigh McCulloch, David Mazières Standard Active
SEP-0031 Cross-Border Payments API SDF Standard Active
SEP-0033 Identicons for Stellar Accounts Lobstr.co, Gleb Pitsevich Standard Active

Draft Proposals

Number Title Author Track Status
SEP-0015 Attachment Convention Interstellar Standard Draft
SEP-0016 Account Transfer Permissionless Payment Protocol (@p2p) Jeremy Rubin Standard Draft
SEP-0017 Issuer account funding protocol (CAP-13 Based) Tom Quisel Standard Draft
SEP-0019 Bootstrapping Multisig Transaction Submission Paul Selden, Nikhil Saraf Standard Draft
SEP-0021 On-chain signature & transaction sharing Mister.Ticot Informational Draft
SEP-0022 IPFS Support Samuel B. Sendelbach Informational Draft
SEP-0030 Recoverysigner: multi-party key management of Stellar accounts Leigh McCulloch, Lindsay Lin Standard Draft
SEP-0032 Asset Address Leigh McCulloch Standard Draft
SEP-0034 Wallet Attribution for Anchors Jake Urban and Leigh McCulloch Standard Final Comment Period
SEP-0035 Operation IDs Isaiah Turner, Debnil Sur, Scott Fleckenstein Standard Draft
SEP-0037 Address Directory API OrbitLens Informational Draft
SEP-0038 Anchor RFQ API Jake Urban and Leigh McCulloch Standard Draft
SEP-0039 Interoperability Recommendations for NFTs SDF, Litemint.io Informational Active

Rejected and Deprecated Proposals

Number Title Author Track Status
SEP-0003 Compliance Protocol SDF Standard Deprecated
SEP-0013 DEPOSIT_SERVER proposal @no, @ant, @manran, @pacngfar Informational Rejected
SEP-0026 Non-interactive Anchor/Wallet Asset Transfer SDF, Fritz Ekwoge (@efritze), Ernest Mbenkum (@cameroon) Standard Rejected

Contribution Process

The Stellar Ecosystem, like most software ecosystems in the world, continues to evolve over time to meet the needs of our network's participants and to drive technology forward into new territory.

Unlike Stellar's Core development (CAPs), Stellar's Ecosystem Proposals are intended to be a more dynamic way of introducing standards and protocols utilized in the ecosystem that are built on top of the Stellar Network. It attempts to take a more lightweight process for approval, and much of its process is inspired by the IETF.

Before contributing, consider the following:

  • Choose a track to propose your idea on. The bar for accepting an Informational SEP is much lower than one for a Standard, and allows you to promote the SEP independently to gain feedback and traction before creating a Standard out of it.
  • Gather feedback from discussion on the dev mailing list and other forums, and utilize it to begin a draft proposal.
  • Follow the proposal process listed below. If you're having difficulty moving the proposal forward, talk to the buddy that's assigned the SEP; they'll often have guidance on how to move things forward, as well as feedback regarding feasibility and how the proposal does or does not align with the Stellar Network's goals.

SEP Process

Pre-SEP (Initial Discussion)

Introduce your idea on the stellar-dev mailing list and other community forums dedicated to Stellar.

  • Make sure to gather feedback and alternative ideas — it's useful before putting together a formal draft!
  • Consider contacting experts in a particular area for feedback while you're hashing out the details.

Creating a SEP Draft

Draft a formal proposal using the SEP Template, and submit a PR to this repository. You should make sure to adhere to the following:

  • Use the following format for the filename of your draft: sep_{shorttitle}.md, for example sep_newaccountdeposit.md
  • Make sure to place your SEP in the ecosystem/ folder.
  • Include GitHub handles or emails for all authors listed. GitHub handles are preferred.
  • Set the version to v0.0.1.

Finally, submit a PR of your draft via your fork of this repository.

Additional Tips

  • If your SEP requires images or other supporting files, they should be included in a subdirectory of the contents folder for that SEP, such as contents/sep_happycoder_b274f73c/. Links should be relative, for example a link to an image from SEP-X would be ../contents/sep_happycoder_b274f73c/image.png.

Draft: Merging & Further Iteration

From there, the following process will happen:

  • A SEP buddy is assigned and will merge your PR if you properly followed the steps above.
    • They'll rename the above files to the latest SEP draft number before merging in the PR.
    • They'll provide initial feedback, and help pull in any subject matter experts that will help in pushing the SEP towards a final disposition.
  • You should continue the discussion of the draft SEP on the mailing list to gather additional feedback. We welcome any additional PRs that iterate on the draft.
  • Keep the version of the SEP as a v0 version while in draft.
  • Increment the minor or patch versions on each change while in draft. See SEP Versioning.

Draft -> Awaiting Decision -> Final Comment Period (FCP)

  • When you're ready, you should submit a PR changing the status in the draft to Awaiting Decision.
  • A SEP buddy is assigned from the SEP team. They'll provide any additional feedback, and help pull in any subject matter experts and SEP team members that will help in pushing the SEP towards a final disposition.
    • For the Informational Track, the SEP enters FCP when 2 members of the SEP Team approve the pull request.
    • For the Standards Track, the SEP enters FCP when 3 members of the SEP team approve the pull request, 2 of whom must be representatives of SDF.
    • The SEP buddy (the PR assignee) is responsible for including members of the SEP team who are subject experts on the SEP being discussed; however, you are free to pull in feedback without going through your buddy. The SEP buddy may also bring it up at an upcoming protocol meeting.
    • If any SEP has major concerns (typically around security) from a SEP Team or CAP Core Team member, the concerns must be addressed before moving it forward; otherwise, it will be set back to Draft, or if fundamentally broken, to Rejected.
    • It should take no more than 2 weeks to move a SEP out of Awaiting Decision.
  • Once a SEP has been approved, it goes into FCP which is broadcast to the protocol meeting members along with the mailing list.

FCP -> Active

  • If no major concerns are brought up, the SEP is marked as Active and updated to version v1.0.0 by your SEP buddy.
  • Ideally there will be a reference implementation exhibiting the behavior and value of the SEP before moving to active state.
  • Active SEPs should be brought into production by ecosystem members.
  • Increment the major, minor, or patch versions on each change. See SEP Versioning.
  • Patch changes may be made to address bugs, errors, clarifications, or to fix errata.
  • Minor changes may be made as more implementations are brought online highlighting any edge cases.
  • Major changes, and breaking changes, should be considered with care as they may reduce interoperability.

Active -> Final

  • Once the SEP team determines that an active SEP is complete, proven, and won't be extended, the SEP can move to Final status.
  • This promotion can only occur once there are multiple live implementations being used in production to ensure any edge cases or incompatibilities are found.
  • No changes will be made to a finalized SEP aside from fixing errata.
  • Changes should increment the patch version number only.
  • Much consideration should be given before moving to Final status, it is OK for SEPs to live in Active status for a long time.

Regression

  • It is possible for a SEP to move from Active to Draft or Deprecated if it is never adopted, or is abandoned by the community.
  • Regression of an active SEP occurs via the same process as a proposal (Draft -> Awaiting Decision -> FCP -> Deprecated)

SEP Versioning

Unlike CAPs, SEPs are assigned versions because they are dynamic and change over time. SEPs use semantic versioning in the form vMAJOR.MINOR.PATCH to determine an appropriate version for each change.

During draft a SEP should have a major version of 0 to indicate that anything in the SEP may change at anytime. Once a SEP moves to Active it should be changed to v1.0.0 and the rules of semantic versioning apply.

All changes to a SEP should be accompanied by an update to its version, no matter how small even typographical corrections. The exceptions that do not require version updates:

  • Correcting metadata in the Pragma section.
  • Updating broken links.
  • Updating links to implementations.

SEP Team Members

  • Justin Rice <@rice2000> (SDF)
  • Tomer Weller <@tomerweller> (SDF)
  • Nikhil Saraf<@nikhilsaraf> (SDF)
  • Leigh McCulloch <@leighmcculloch> (SDF)
  • Jake Urban <@JakeUrban> (SDF)
  • Alex Cordeiro <@accordeiro> (SDF)
  • Marcelo Salloum <@marcelosalloum> (SDF)
  • Orbit Lens <@orbitlens>
  • David Mazières <@stanford-scs> (SDF)
  • Jed McCaleb <@jedmccaleb> (SDF)