- 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 asInformational
to gain traction within the ecosystem before moving to theStandards
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.
- 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 aDraft
. - 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.
- 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- Superseded: [New Final SEP] - A SEP that which was previously final but has been superseded by a new, final SEP.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.
Number | Title | Author | Track | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
SEP-0001 | stellar.toml specification | 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-0007 | URI Scheme to facilitate delegated signing | Interstellar | Standard | Final |
SEP-0008 | Regulated Assets | Interstellar | Standard | Final |
SEP-0009 | Standard KYC / AML Fields | SDF | Standard | Active |
SEP-0010 | Stellar Web Authentication | Sergey Nebolsin, Tom Quisel | Standard | Active |
SEP-0011 | Txrep: Human-Readable Low-Level Representation of Stellar Transactions | David Mazières | Standard | Active |
SEP-0012 | Anchor/Client Customer Info Transfer | Interstellar | Standard | Active |
SEP-0020 | Self-verification of validator nodes | Johan Stén | Standard | Active |
SEP-0024 | Simplified Anchor/Client Interoperability | SDF | Standard | Active |
SEP-0028 | XDR Base64 Encoding | SDF | Standard | Final |
Number | Title | Author | Track | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
SEP-0014 | Dynamic Asset Metadata | OrbitLens, Paul Tiplady | Standard | Draft |
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-0018 | Data Entry Namespaces | Mister.Ticot | 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-0023 | Augmented strkey format for multiplexed addresses | David Mazières and Tomer Weller | Standard | Draft |
Number | Title | Author | Track | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
SEP-0003 | Compliance Protocol | SDF | Standard | Deprecated |
SEP-0006 | Anchor/Client Interoperability | SDF | Standard | Deprecated in favor of SEP-24 |
SEP-0013 | DEPOSIT_SERVER proposal | @no, @ant, @manran, @pacngfar | Informational | Rejected |
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 aStandard
, 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.
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.
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 examplesep_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.
Finally, submit a PR of your draft via your fork of this repository.
- If your SEP requires images or other supporting files, they should be included in a subdirectory
of the
contents
folder for that SEP, such ascontents/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
.
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.
- 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, toRejected
. - 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.
- If no major concerns are brought up, the SEP is marked as
Active
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.
- Minor changes may be made as more implementations are brought online highlighting any edge cases.
- 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 minor errata.
- Much consideration should be given before moving to Final status, it is OK for SEPs to live in Active status for a long time.
- It is possible for a SEP to move from
Active
toDraft
orDeprecated
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 Team: Tomer (SDF), Nikhil (SDF) Tom Q. (SDF), Michael (SDF), Alex (SDF), orbitlens, David (SDF), Jed (SDF)