Copied from eip-X.
SEP: <to be assigned>
Title: <SEP title>
Author: <list of authors' names and optionally, email addresses>
Status: Draft
Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the SEP.
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
Should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the SEP solves. SEP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature.
The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
All SEPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The SEP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. SEP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for SEPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other SEPs can choose to include links to test cases if applicable.
The implementations must be completed before any SEPs is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the SEP is accepted. While there is merit to the approach of reaching consensus on the specification and rationale before writing code, the principle of "rough consensus and running code" is still useful when it comes to resolving many discussions of API details.