1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1RcliI-0008Jw-Dg
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:29:42 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-vx0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-vx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RcliF-0004tT-Qd
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:29:42 +0000
Received: by vcbf1 with SMTP id f1so4845607vcb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:29:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.155.142 with SMTP id s14mr11087510vcw.1.1324333774401;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.4.68 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:29:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQpMWYLoT_1Za5AxvgNaXvEuJOZ2BjE94o09=t+LyfM5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
-0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RcliF-0004tT-Qd
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP language on normative behavior
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:29:42 -0000
I've been arguing with Luke-JR on IRC about the interpenetration of
BIP_0014=E2=80=94 Gavin's recent commit uses the same version string for t=
he
GUI interface and the daemon mode.
Luke believes this is a _violation_ of BIP_0014 and an error in
judgement on Gavin's part, and a failure to conform to the community
adopted standard. I believe Luke is mistaken: that BIP_0014 actually
don't have mandatory requirements for what you put in the version
field and even if it did, that they are in fact the same software and
should have the same name.
I don't think an agreement is likely on the second point, but the
first point highlights some ambiguity in the interpretation of BIP
language. E.g. What is permitted vs encouraged vs required.
There is well established standard language for this purpose:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
I strongly recommend that all BIPs be written using the RFC2119
keywords where appropriate.
|
