diff --git a/0000-linker-customization-convention.md b/0000-linker-customization-convention.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..52fe940a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/0000-linker-customization-convention.md
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+- Feature Name: linker_customization_convention
+- Start Date: 2017-05-13
+- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
+
+# Summary
+
+Set a convention for passing custom arguments to the linker when using Cargo for
+embedded development. This RFC proposes adopting a project local configuration
+file, `.cargo/config`, to pass the arguments.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Embedded development requires precise control over the memory layout of the
+final binary artifact; this is usually achieved through a mixture of extra
+linker arguments, object files and linker scripts. There is currently no
+convention about how to pass extra arguments to the linker using Cargo / rustc
+but there are currently two approaches used in practice:
+
+- Write a custom target specification file, usually basing it on a built-in
+  target, and then adding to it the linker arguments in the `{pre,,}-link-args`
+  fields.
+
+- Use a project local configuration file, `.cargo/config`, to pass linker
+  arguments through the `target.$T.rustflags` variable.
+
+A third alternative would be to add features to Cargo to let it control the
+linking process through build scripts. This seems unlikely to be implemented in
+the short term (or ever)
+as [the downsides may outweigh the benefits][rustc-link-arg].
+
+[rustc-link-arg]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1766#issuecomment-252034343
+
+The goal is to RFC is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each
+approach and to settle on one of them as a convention.
+
+# Rationale
+
+Or, why `.cargo/config` should be preferred over custom targets for this
+purpose:
+
+Linker arguments, linker scripts and object files are usually device, board or
+application specific. IMO, this maps nicely to `.cargo/config` as it's a project
+local, and thus an application specific, configuration. OTOH, targets are more
+global and are meant to be used across projects. Using targets to control the
+linker at worst implies having one custom target per project.
+
+Using different targets implies having different sysroots, one per target. This
+is wasteful because custom targets are usually based on built-in targets and
+just add linker arguments thus the generated sysroots will be exactly the same
+because linker arguments don't affect code generation.
+
+Using custom targets also makes Xargo a requirement as the a sysroot will have
+to be compiled on the fly for each target. OTOH, if project local configuration
+files are used *with* built-in targets then it'd be possible to *not* depend on
+Xargo *if* the `rust-std` component is available for the built-in target.
+
+Let me rephrase that last part:
+
+If we settle on `.cargo/config` as the way to pass arguments to the linker then
+most projects will switch back to built-in targets. If there's a `rust-std`
+component available for those built-in targets then Xargo isn't required to
+build the application and regular Cargo can be used.
+
+# Blockers
+
+For adopting this convention:
+
+As `.cargo/config` passes arguments to the linker using the `rustc` interface,
+currently it's only possible to *append* arguments to the linker invocation
+(using `-C link-arg{,s}`). However, some applications require control over the
+*order* of linker arguments; specifically, some arguments (object files) need to
+be passed to the linker *before* the Rust object files. `rustc` doesn't support
+this scenario ATM but a PR has been [sent] to allow it via the `-Z
+pre-link-arg{,s}` arguments.
+
+[sent]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/41971
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+- Does `.cargo/config` cover all the existing use cases?
+  - Here's a [project] with a complex requirement of linker arguments and it's
+    fully supported by the `.cargo/config` approach.
+
+[project]: https://github.com/japaric/photon-quickstart/pull/6