With the recent decision to separate EIPs and ERCs into two distinct repositories, it’s become apparent that the preamble section, as defined in EIP-1, requires some adjustments to better suit ERCs. Here are my thoughts on the necessary changes:
Change of Identifier: The
eipfield should be updated to
ercto reflect the specific nature of the document. This change is straightforward but crucial for clarity and proper categorization.
Removal of Category: Given that all documents in the ERC repository will inherently fall under the ERC category, the
categoryfield becomes redundant. Removing it would streamline the preamble and avoid unnecessary repetition.
Reevaluation of Type: The
typefield, which currently seems to default to
Standards Trackfor ERCs, might be redundant if all ERCs indeed fall under this type. However, I would advise caution here. If there’s even a small subset of ERCs that might require a different type classification in the future, retaining this field could be beneficial for flexibility and future-proofing. It’s worth a deeper analysis to confirm the uniformity of the
typefield across all ERCs.
Potential Additional Changes: While the above points address the most immediate concerns, we should also be open to other adjustments that might better tailor the preamble to the specific needs and nuances of ERCs. This could include additional fields or modifications to existing ones that reflect the unique aspects of ERCs.
I believe these changes will make the preamble more relevant and efficient for ERCs.