---
slug: XX
title: TEMPLATE
name: RFC Template
status: raw/draft/stable/deprecated
category: Standards Track/Informational/Best Current Practice
tags: an optional list of tags, not standard
editor: Daniel Kaiser <danielkaiser@status.im>
contributors:
---

## (Info, remove this section)

This section contains meta info about writing RFCs.
This section (including its subsections) MUST be removed.

[COSS](https://rfc.vac.dev/spec/1/) explains the Vac RFC process.

## Tags

The `tags` metadata SHOULD contain a list of tags if applicable.

Currently identified tags comprise

* `waku/core-protocol` for Waku protocol definitions (e.g. store, relay, light push),
* `waku/application` for applications built on top of Waku protocol
(e.g. eth-dm, toy-chat),

## Abstract

## Background / Rationale / Motivation

This section serves as an introduction providing background information and
a motivation/rationale for why the specified protocol is useful.

## Theory / Semantics

A standard track RFC in `stable` status MUST feature this section.
A standard track RFC in `raw` or `draft` status SHOULD feature this section.
This section SHOULD explain in detail how the proposed protocol works.
It may touch on the wire format where necessary for the explanation.
This section MAY also specify endpoint behaviour when receiving specific messages,
e.g. the behaviour of certain caches etc.

## Wire Format Specification / Syntax

A standard track RFC in `stable` status MUST feature this section.
A standard track RFC in `raw` or `draft` status SHOULD feature this section.
This section SHOULD not contain explanations of semantics and
focus on concisely defining the wire format.
Implementations MUST adhere to these exact formats to interoperate with other implementations.
It is fine, if parts of the previous section that touch on the wire format are repeated.
The purpose of this section is having a concise definition
of what an implementation sends and accepts.
Parts that are not specified here are considered implementation details.
Implementors are free to decide on how to implement these details.
An optional *implementation suggestions* section may provide suggestions
on how to approach implementation details, and,
if available, point to existing implementations for reference.

## Implementation Suggestions (optional)

## (Further Optional Sections)

## Security/Privacy Considerations

A standard track RFC in `stable` status MUST feature this section.
A standard track RFC in `raw` or `draft` status SHOULD feature this section.
Informational RFCs (in any state) may feature this section.
If there are none, this section MUST explicitly state that fact.
This section MAY contain additional relevant information,
e.g. an explanation as to why there are no security consideration
for the respective document.

## Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

## References

References MAY be subdivided into normative and informative.

## normative

A list of references that MUST be read to fully understand and/or
implement this protocol.
See [RFC3967 Section 1.1](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3967#section-1.1).

## informative

A list of additional references.
