Update EIP template: Add acceptable placeholders

eip-template.md

@@ -1,55 +1,116 @@
 ---
-eip: <to be assigned>
 title: <The EIP title is a few words, not a complete sentence>
 description: <Description is one full (short) sentence>
 author: <a comma separated list of the author's or authors' name + GitHub username (in parenthesis), or name and email (in angle brackets).  Example, FirstName LastName (@GitHubUsername), FirstName LastName <foo@bar.com>, FirstName (@GitHubUsername) and GitHubUsername (@GitHubUsername)>
 discussions-to: <URL>
 status: Draft
 type: <Standards Track, Meta, or Informational>
-category (*only required for Standards Track): <Core, Networking, Interface, or ERC>
+category: <Core, Networking, Interface, or ERC> # Only required for Standards Track. Otherwise, remove this field.
 created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
-requires (*optional): <EIP number(s)>
+requires: <EIP number(s)> # Only required when you reference an EIP in the `Specification` section. Otherwise, remove this field.
 ---
 
-This is the suggested template for new EIPs.
+<!--
+  READ EIP-1 (https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1) BEFORE USING THIS TEMPLATE!
 
-Note that an EIP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your EIP, please use an abbreviated title in the filename, `eip-draft_title_abbrev.md`.
+  This is the suggested template for new EIPs. After you have filled in the requisite fields, please delete these comments.
 
-The title should be 44 characters or less. It should not repeat the EIP number in title, irrespective of the category.
+  Note that an EIP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your EIP, please use an abbreviated title in the filename, `eip-draft_title_abbrev.md`.
+
+  The title should be 44 characters or less. It should not repeat the EIP number in title, irrespective of the category.
+
+  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
+-->
 
 ## Abstract
 
-Abstract is a multi-sentence (short paragraph) technical summary. This should be a very terse and human-readable version of the specification section. Someone should be able to read only the abstract to get the gist of what this specification does.
+<!--
+  The Abstract is a multi-sentence (short paragraph) technical summary. This should be a very terse and human-readable version of the specification section. Someone should be able to read only the abstract to get the gist of what this specification does.
+
+  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
+-->
 
 ## Motivation
 
-The motivation section should describe the "why" of this EIP. What problem does it solve? Why should someone want to implement this standard? What benefit does it provide to the Ethereum ecosystem? What use cases does this EIP address?
+<!--
+  This section is optional. If this is your first time drafting an EIP, it is recommended not to include a motivation until you are familiar with EIP-1, as mistakes will delay your draft being merged.
+
+  The motivation section should include a description of any nontrivial problems the EIP solves. It should not describe how the EIP solves those problems, unless it is not immediately obvious. It should not describe why the EIP should be made into a standard, unless it is not immediately obvious.
+
+  With a few exceptions, external links are not allowed. If you feel that a particular resource would demonstrate a compelling case for your EIP, then save it as a printer-friendly PDF, put it in the assets folder, and link to that copy.
+
+  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
+-->
 
 ## Specification
 
-The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and RFC 8174.
+<!--
+  The Specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Ethereum platforms (go-ethereum, parity, cpp-ethereum, ethereumj, ethereumjs, and others).
+
+  It is recommended to follow RFC 2119 and RFC 8170. Do not remove the key word definitions if RFC 2119 and RFC 8170 are followed.
+
+  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
+-->
 
-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 any of the current Ethereum platforms (go-ethereum, parity, cpp-ethereum, ethereumj, ethereumjs, and [others](https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/)).
+The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and RFC 8174.
 
 ## Rationale
 
-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 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 current placeholder is acceptable for a draft.
+
+  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
+-->
+
+TBD
 
 ## Backwards Compatibility
 
-All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. EIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
+<!--
+  All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. EIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
+
+  The current placeholder is acceptable for a draft.
+
+  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
+-->
+
+No backward compatibility issues found.
 
 ## Test Cases
 
-Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes.  If the test suite is too large to reasonably be included inline, then consider adding it as one or more files in `../assets/eip-####/`.
+<!--
+  This section is optional. If this is your first time drafting an EIP, it is recommended not to include test cases until you are familiar with EIP-1, as mistakes will delay your draft being merged. If the test suite is too large to reasonably be included inline, then it is probably too big.
+
+  The test cases do not need to be executable. Expected input/output pairs are sufficient, and are less likely to block your EIP.
+
+  With a few exceptions, external links are not allowed.
 
+  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
+-->
+
 ## Reference Implementation
 
-An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to assist in understanding or implementing this specification.  If the implementation is too large to reasonably be included inline, then consider adding it as one or more files in `../assets/eip-####/`.
+<!--
+  This section is optional. If this is your first time drafting an EIP, it is recommended not to include a reference implementation until you are familiar with EIP-1, as mistakes will delay your draft being merged. If the reference implementation is too large to reasonably be included inline, then it is probably too big.
+
+  With a few exceptions, external links are not allowed.
+
+  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
+-->
 
 ## Security Considerations
 
-All EIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surfaces risks and can be used throughout the life cycle of the proposal. E.g. include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks and how they are being addressed. EIP submissions missing the "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. An EIP cannot proceed to status "Final" without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
+<!--
+  All EIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surfaces risks and can be used throughout the life cycle of the proposal. E.g. include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks and how they are being addressed. EIP submissions missing the "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. An EIP cannot proceed to status "Final" without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
+
+  The current placeholder is acceptable for a draft.
+
+  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
+-->
+
+Needs discussion.
 
 ## Copyright