Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28F019C for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:09:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (unknown [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26BD252 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:09:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBEEA38A2BE4 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:08:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160715:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::lGPpn3eXk0zbMaIk:ax0N4 To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: Luke Dashjr Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:08:51 +0000 X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201607151608.52063.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:09:06 -0000 Daniel Cousens opened the issue a few weeks ago, that BIP 9 should progress to Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clear on whether it falls in the Draft/Accepted/Final classification of proposals requiring implementation, or the Draft/Active classification like process BIPs. Background of this discussion is at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/413 (Discussion on the GitHub BIPs repo is *NOT* recommended, hence bringing this topic to the mailing list) Reviewing the criteria for status changes, my opinion is that: - BIPs 68, 112, 113, and 141 are themselves implementations of BIP 9 -- therefore, BIP 9 falls under the Draft/Accepted/Final class - BIPs 68, 112, and 113 have been deployed to the network successfully -- therefore, BIP 9 has satisfied the conditions of not only Accepted status, but also Final status -- therefore, BIPs 68, 112, and 113 also ought to be Final status If there are no objections, I plan to update the status to Final for BIPs 9, 68, 112, and 113 in one month. Since all four BIPs are currently Draft, I also need at least one author from each BIP to sign-off on promoting them to (and beyond) Accepted. BIP 9: Pieter Wuille Peter Todd Greg Maxwell Rusty Russell BIP 68: Mark Friedenbach BtcDrak Nicolas Dorier kinoshitajona BIP 112: BtcDrak Mark Friedenbach Eric Lombrozo BIP 113: Thomas Kerin Mark Friedenbach