Updated Indexer FIP (ready to merge)

[honghaoq]

Updated latest version of Indexer FIP.

[anorth]

@kaitlin-beegle I'm not sure whether this should be a FIP or FRC. It doesn't propose any changes to the core Filecoin protocol, but proposes an ancillary protocol that is related and beneficial to Filecoin. But nodes don't have to implement it to remain fully-validating Filecoin nodes. It would still belong in this repo, but maybe have a different title. How shall we draw this distinction?

[kaitlin-beegle]

@kaitlin-beegle I'm not sure whether this should be a FIP or FRC. It doesn't propose any changes to the core Filecoin protocol, but proposes an ancillary protocol that is related and beneficial to Filecoin. But nodes don't have to implement it to remain fully-validating Filecoin nodes. It would still belong in this repo, but maybe have a different title. How shall we draw this distinction?

Thanks for surfacing this. I was speaking with @honghaoq about this yesterday, and we briefly discussed it in Core Devs #41.

I think you're correct that this ought to remain in this repo, but should be separated from our standard/Core Technical FIPs. If accepted, this should be seen as a standard for implementations, but the actual implementation doesn't need to be as closely coordinated.

I'm inclined to adopt the EIP process, write up some quick documentation for this decision, open it for feedback for a few days, and codify this change (which seems a bit more formal) with a PR against FIP001. However, @anorth, I know you had previously suggested introducing an FRC format and decided that more thought was needed- are there any particular considerations or concerns that you currently have about this format?

[irybakov]

Please, take this changes into account

[anorth]

I think this is ready to be merged as a draft.

[kaitlin-beegle]

@kaitlin-beegle I'm not sure whether this should be a FIP or FRC. It doesn't propose any changes to the core Filecoin protocol, but proposes an ancillary protocol that is related and beneficial to Filecoin. But nodes don't have to implement it to remain fully-validating Filecoin nodes. It would still belong in this repo, but maybe have a different title. How shall we draw this distinction?

Thanks for surfacing this. I was speaking with @honghaoq about this yesterday, and we briefly discussed it in Core Devs #41.

I think you're correct that this ought to remain in this repo, but should be separated from our standard/Core Technical FIPs. If accepted, this should be seen as a standard for implementations, but the actual implementation doesn't need to be as closely coordinated.

I'm inclined to adopt the EIP process, write up some quick documentation for this decision, open it for feedback for a few days, and codify this change (which seems a bit more formal) with a PR against FIP001. However, @anorth, I know you had previously suggested introducing an FRC format and decided that more thought was needed- are there any particular considerations or concerns that you currently have about this format?

Alright, just pushed new docs outlining a potential FRC process...once we come to agreement about the details of this process, I suggest that this be the network's first FRC!

To review: #378

CC: @anorth @honghaoq