initial commit with blank RFC

text/0106-datetime-year-range-extension.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# RFC Template (Fill in your title here)
+
+## Related issues and PRs
+
+- Reference Issues: (fill in existing related issues, if any)
+- Implementation PR(s): (leave this empty)
+
+## Timeline
+
+- Started: (fill in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+- Accepted: TBD
+- Stabilized: TBD
+
+## Summary
+
+Brief explanation of the feature.
+
+## Basic example
+
+If the proposal involves a new or changed API, include a basic code example.
+Omit this section if it's not applicable.
+
+## Motivation
+
+Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected
+outcome?
+
+Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted,
+the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words,
+enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too
+closely to the solution you have in mind.
+
+## Detailed design
+
+This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody familiar with Cedar to understand, and for somebody familiar with the implementation to implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases, and include examples of how the feature is used. Any new terminology should be defined here.
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+Why should we *not* do this? Please consider:
+
+- implementation cost, both in term of code size and complexity
+- integration of this feature with other existing and planned features
+- cost of migrating existing Cedar applications (is it a breaking change?)
+
+There are tradeoffs to choosing any path. Attempt to identify them here.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+What other designs have been considered? What is the impact of not doing this?
+
+## Unresolved questions
+
+Optional, but suggested for first drafts. What parts of the design are still
+TBD?