• LIP: 3
• Layer: Meta/Process
• Title: LIP Structure and Process
• Author: Allwin Ketnawang
• Created: 2025-04-28
• Status: Proposed

Abstract#

This LIP defines the standard structure, required sections, header fields, and lifecycle statuses for LEA Improvement Proposals (LIPs). Establishing a consistent format and process facilitates clear communication, effective review, and organized tracking of proposed changes to the LEA protocol and ecosystem. This document itself follows the proposed standard.

Motivation#

As the LEA project evolves, a standardized process for proposing, discussing, and tracking changes becomes essential. Currently, there is no formal definition for how improvement proposals should be structured or managed. This leads to potential inconsistencies, makes proposals harder to compare and review, and complicates tracking their progress. LIP-3 aims to rectify this by establishing a clear template and defined lifecycle for all future LIPs, improving clarity and efficiency in the development process.

Specification#

All LEA Improvement Proposals MUST adhere to the following Markdown structure and include the defined header fields and sections.

1. LIP Header Preamble#

Each LIP must begin with a header section containing the following fields:

• LIP: (Required) The LIP number, assigned sequentially (e.g., 3).
• Layer: (Required) The area of the LEA protocol or ecosystem affected. See Layer Definitions below.
• Title: (Required) A concise title summarizing the proposal's content.
• Author: (Required) A list of the author(s) or primary champion(s) of the proposal, using names or handles.
• Discussions-To: (Optional) A URL pointing to the primary discussion forum, issue tracker thread, or mailing list archive for this LIP.
• Created: (Required) The date the LIP was first formally drafted (YYYY-MM-DD).
• Updated: (Optional) The date the LIP was last significantly updated (YYYY-MM-DD).
• Requires: (Optional) A list of LIP number(s) that this LIP depends on.
• Replaces: (Optional) A list of LIP number(s) that this LIP renders obsolete.
• Superseded-By: (Optional) A list of LIP number(s) that render this LIP obsolete.
• Status: (Required) The current stage of the LIP in its lifecycle. See Status Definitions below.

2. LIP Body Sections#

Following the header, each LIP must include these sections:

• Abstract: A brief (~200 word) summary of the proposal.
• Motivation: Explanation of the problem being solved and the rationale for the proposal.
• Specification: Detailed technical description of the proposed changes.
• Rationale: Justification for design choices and discussion of alternatives considered.
• Backwards Compatibility: Analysis of compatibility with existing systems and transition plans if applicable.
• Security Considerations: Assessment of potential security impacts.
• Copyright: Statement of the license under which the LIP is released (typically CC0 waiver or MIT License).

3. Layer Definitions#

The Layer field categorizes the LIP. Defined layers are:

• Core Encoding: Changes to data serialization (e.g., CTE).
• Consensus: Changes to network agreement rules.
• Networking: Changes to peer-to-peer protocols.
• API/RPC: Changes to node interaction interfaces.
• Application: Standards for applications built on LEA.
• Meta/Process: Changes to the LIP process itself (like this LIP).

4. Status Definitions#

The Status field tracks the LIP's lifecycle stage:

• Idea: Informal concept stage.
• Draft: Initial formal written version for discussion.
• Proposed: Mature draft ready for formal review.
• Approved / Accepted: Formally accepted for implementation.
• Active / Final: Implemented and part of the official specification/protocol.
• Deferred: Postponed for later consideration.
• Rejected: Formally declined.
• Withdrawn: Retracted by the author(s).
• Replaced / Superseded: Made obsolete by a newer LIP.

5. LIP Template Markdown#

The following Markdown code block represents the standard template to be used for new LIPs:

* **LIP: [LIP Number]**
* **Layer: [See Definitions Below]**
* **Title: [Concise Title of the Proposal]**
* **Author: [List of Author(s) / Handle(s)]**
* **Discussions-To: [Link to Forum Thread, Issue Tracker, etc. (Optional)]**
* **Created: [YYYY-MM-DD]**
* **Updated: [YYYY-MM-DD (Optional)]**
* **Requires: [LIP Number(s) (Optional)]**
* **Replaces: [LIP Number(s) (Optional)]**
* **Superseded-By: [LIP Number(s) (Optional)]**
* **Status: [See Definitions Below]**

## Abstract

A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed and the proposed change.

## Motivation

Explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem solved by this LIP. It should clearly state the proposal's purpose and rationale.

## Specification

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 the LEA blockchain. Include any modifications to existing structures (like CTE tags/fields), new data structures, algorithms, or protocols.

## Rationale

Explain the reasoning behind the design decisions in the specification. Why were particular design choices made? What alternatives were considered, and why were they not chosen? This section should cover engineering trade-offs.

## Backwards Compatibility

Discuss any backwards compatibility implications. Does this change break existing rules or implementations? How will the transition be handled? Proposals that are not backward compatible must specify how the incompatibility is justified.

## Security Considerations

Describe any security implications or considerations related to this LIP. This includes potential attack vectors, impacts on privacy, or changes to the system's overall security assumptions.

## Copyright

All LIPs must be licensed under an appropriate open-source license (e.g., MIT License).

Rationale#

Adopting a standardized structure based on common practices in other blockchain projects (like BIPs/EIPs) provides immediate clarity and familiarity. The chosen sections cover the essential aspects needed to understand, evaluate, and implement a proposal. Defining layers helps categorize proposals, while defined statuses provide a clear view of the proposal lifecycle. Making this definition itself a LIP ensures the process is self-documenting and can be updated via the same mechanism if needed.

Backwards Compatibility#

This LIP defines a process and does not directly impact the LEA protocol's technical backwards compatibility. It applies to LIPs created after its acceptance.

Security Considerations#

Standardizing the proposal process does not introduce direct technical vulnerabilities. However, adherence to the process, particularly the Security Considerations section within each LIP, is crucial for maintaining the overall security of the LEA protocol as it evolves. Ensuring clear documentation and review helps prevent unintentional security issues.

Copyright#

This LIP is licensed under the MIT License, in alignment with the main LEA Project License.