* [bitcoin-dev] New BIP editor, and request for information
@ 2016-01-07 17:10 Luke Dashjr
2016-01-12 0:09 ` Tier Nolan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2016-01-07 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Dev; +Cc: Gregory Maxwell, John L. Jegutanis
Greg has requested that I take over as the BIP editor responsible for
assigning BIP numbers. Before I begin, I would like to ensure I have a correct
record of what has already been assigned or soft-assigned so I don't overlap
them, as the BIPs repository appears that it may possibly be incomplete.
If you have been assigned (or soft-assigned) a BIP number - or any other
information that may be relevant to my performing this role, please reply and
let me know, preferably within the next 24 hours if possible (as there are
many BIP drafts awaiting assignments).
Getting into some specifics...
- BIP 46 is missing from the repository, but apparently self-soft-assigned by
Tier Nolan in https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-April/005545.html ; if this was later assigned official, or if he is still
interested in pursuing this, it seems logical to just keep it at BIP 46.
- BIPs 80 and 81 are currently part of an open pull request
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/170, but it is unclear if they were
formally assigned or not.
- BIP 82 is currently officially assigned and pending in
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/171 ; I personally think this is outside
the scope of BIPs since it does not deal with Bitcoin, and encourage Justus to
move it to the SLIP standard, but will honour this assignment unless he tells
me he is moving it. (But understand this will not set a precedent for strictly
non-Bitcoin things being assigned BIPs...)
- BIP 100 is missing from the repository, and I am uncertain if it was ever
properly assigned. Considering that the 10x block has mostly been used for
similar proposals, and BIP 100 is fairly well-established as "BIP 100", it
seems logical to just make this its official assignment.
- BIP 104 is missing from the repository, but was apparently used unofficially
by https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBX3hCekFRSUVySWs/view at one
time. But I do not see an actual specification in this PDF, so as far as I
know BIP 104 appears to be available?
- BIP 109 was soft-assigned for
https://gist.github.com/erasmospunk/23040383b7620b525df0, but as this doesn't
fit with the rest of 10x, I am inclined to give it a new number outside that
range unless there are objections.
- BIP 122 is missing from the repository, and was self-soft-assigned by Chris
Priest for "ScaleNet" in https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/222 ; there are
concerns whether testnets are appropriate for standardisation at all, but
since it has received sufficient discussion on the mailing list and others
appear to agree with the effort, it seems reasonable to err in favour of
assigning it a BIP number (not necessarily 122) if Chris wishes to further
pursue the idea and add an actual specification to the draft.
To be clear: except for BIPs 82 and 109, and those appearing in the
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips repository at present, anyone (preferably the
author, but not necessarily if they are away) aware of any other BIP
assignments should reply to this message indicating the status of such BIPs
and their assigned numbers.
Thanks,
Luke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP editor, and request for information
2016-01-07 17:10 [bitcoin-dev] New BIP editor, and request for information Luke Dashjr
@ 2016-01-12 0:09 ` Tier Nolan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Tier Nolan @ 2016-01-12 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 844 bytes --]
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> - BIP 46 is missing from the repository, but apparently self-soft-assigned
> by
> Tier Nolan in
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-April/005545.html
> ; if this was later assigned official, or if he is still
> interested in pursuing this, it seems logical to just keep it at BIP 46.
>
I was never officially assigned any number for this.
Subsequent P2SH changes give the required functionality in an alternative
way. This renders the BIP obsolete.
I suggest marking the number as nonassignable, in order to prevent
confusion with archive searches. I assume that new BIP numbers will be
greater than 100 anyway.
As was pointed out at the time, I shouldn't have used a number in the
original git branch before being assigned it officially.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1315 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-12 0:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-01-07 17:10 [bitcoin-dev] New BIP editor, and request for information Luke Dashjr
2016-01-12 0:09 ` Tier Nolan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox