- Status: Draft | Under Review | Final Comment Period | Accepted | Rejected | Withdrawn
- Author: @handle
- Created: YYYY-MM-DD
- FCP ends: YYYY-MM-DD (set when entering Final Comment Period — minimum 7 days)
- Tracking issue: #NNN
One paragraph. What is being proposed?
Why are we doing this? What problem does it solve, and for whom? What is the evidence the problem is real (customer asks, benchmarks, bug reports)?
The bulk of the RFC. Cover:
- API or wire-format changes, with concrete request/response examples
- Behavioral changes
- Migration path for existing users
- New operational requirements — anything an operator needs to learn, configure, monitor, or run differently after this lands (new daemons, ports, config keys, metrics, runbooks, dependencies)
- Implementation sketch — which crates change, in what order
Why might we not do this? Cost, complexity, lock-in, security risk, maintenance burden.
What else was considered? Why not those?
What is still open? What feedback is the author specifically asking for from reviewers?
Links to similar designs in DynamoDB, other databases, or other open-source projects. What did they get right or wrong?
Copyright 2026 ExtendDB contributors. Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See LICENSE for the full text.
This software is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. ExtendDB is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Amazon Web Services. "DynamoDB" is a trademark of Amazon.com, Inc.