diff --git a/considered/definite_unconstrained_arrays.md b/considered/definite_unconstrained_arrays.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c60cb146
--- /dev/null
+++ b/considered/definite_unconstrained_arrays.md
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+# Definite Unconstrained Arrays RFC
+
+## Summary
+
+This RFC proposes an addition to array types that allows to define them
+with a static maximum size but still use them as if they were unconstrained.
+
+An array defined with
+```Ada
+type Index is range 0 .. 7;
+
+type Static_Array is array (Index range <>) of Natural with
+   Definite;
+```
+
+Adding the aspect `Definite` will force the compiler to always reserve
+enough space to fit every possible range of an object of this type. As the
+possible range for this array is preallocated objects of that type can be
+resized.
+
+```Ada
+declare
+   subtype Static_Subtype is Static_Array (1 .. 3);
+   A : Static_Array := (1, 2, 3, 4);
+   B : Static_Array := (2, 3);
+   S : Static_Subtype := (1, 2, 3);
+begin
+   A := B;
+   A := A & S;
+   A := A & (8, 9);
+   pragma Assert (A'Capcity = 8);
+   A := (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8); -- forbidden as it exceeds the array capacity
+   S := (1, 2); -- forbidden as Static_Subtype is a constrained array
+end;
+```
+
+## Motivation
+
+Arrays in Ada can be declared either with a specific range or with a `<>` to
+allow any value in the range of the index type. While the former variant
+has a static size and is constrained it can only be used with values of the
+same length. Assigning shorter values will fail. The second variant is more
+flexible in that regard. It can take values of any range as long as the range
+can be expressed by the index type. However these arrays require more specific
+language features for some operations, in particular the secondary stack.
+
+In many projects, especially in the embedded or high integrity domain stack
+boundedness is an important property. If stack boundedness needs to be
+statically proven the secondary stack cannot be used as its boundedness cannot
+be shown. Yet the ability to store values of an unknown length is still useful.
+To provide this functionality without a secondary stack many projects use
+the following workaround:
+
+```Ada
+subtype Static_String is String (1 .. 32);
+
+type Sized_String is record
+   Length : Natural;
+   Value  : Static_String;
+end record;
+```
+
+This construct allows to store a value of unknown length with a statically
+known maximum size of 36 byte. It is however cumbersome to use as these objects
+cannot use the `&` operator and slices easily.
+
+## Reference Level Explanation
+
+A new aspect `Definite` is added. An array declared with this aspect is
+resizable within its index type boundaries. Assignments of slices that do not
+fit the original length of that array are allowed.
+
+Additionally objects of that type have the `'Capacity` attribute that returns
+the maximum number of elements the object can hold.
+
+## Syntax
+
+No custom Syntax.
+
+## Static Legality Rules
+
+`Definite` can only be added to array declarations that would create an
+unconstrained array. It can be used on both types and subtypes.
+
+A subtype of a constrained array has the same behaviour as a subtype to a
+regular array. If defined as unconstrained, it will keep the `Definite`
+modifier but with a reduced static size. If defined with a specific constrained
+range it will behave the same way it does without that aspect.
+
+## Operational Semantics
+
+Objects of an array type declared with `Definite` will always be stored in a
+memory zone that has the maximum size of that array type.
+When returned from a function they behave as constrained types and do not
+require the secondary stack.
+Operations on that array such appending and slices will trigger the same checks
+as they do for indefinite arrays.
+
+## Unresolved Questions
+
+* Whether there is a hard limit on the size of these arrays. Theoretically
+  an array with that aspect and the index type `Long_Integer` would be
+  2 ***** 64 * element size bytes large.
+* Whether `Definite` is a good name for that aspect.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+One could argue that the same behaviour can also be achieved by creating a
+record type as described above and implement the correct operators. However
+this would not solve the problem with slicing. Also while such an
+implementation could be generic, the type itself likely cannot as generic
+formal parameters are never considered static.