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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1Wjtbs-0005aO-UA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 12 May 2014 17:01:52 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.80])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Wjtbq-0003Dg-K7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 12 May 2014 17:01:52 +0000
Received: from omta22.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.73])
by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id 11721o0061ap0As5851lap; Mon, 12 May 2014 17:01:45 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:219:d1ff:fe75:dc2f])
by omta22.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id 151k1o00N4VnV2P3i51lxj; Mon, 12 May 2014 17:01:45 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 13:01:43 -0400
Message-ID: <1612758.yYdJV7lBXv@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.13.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRWKWMkzqpQDXJGJYZPyb+vTnaRs3jOrzQ-zG5JJyqr1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgRWKWMkzqpQDXJGJYZPyb+vTnaRs3jOrzQ-zG5JJyqr1Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [76.96.62.80 listed in list.dnswl.org]
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
X-Headers-End: 1Wjtbq-0003Dg-K7
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming
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, 12 May 2014 17:01:53 -0000
On Monday, 12 May 2014, at 9:53 am, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I've noticed some folks struggling to attach labels to their yet to be
> numbered BIPs.
>
> I'd recommend people call them "draft-<main author name>-<what it
> does>" like draft-maxwell-coinburning in the style of pre-WG IETF
> drafts.
Why is there such a high bar to getting a number assigned to a BIP anyway? BIP 1 seems to suggest that getting a BIP number assigned is no big deal, but the reality seems to betray that casual notion. Even proposals with hours of work put into them are not getting BIP numbers. It's not exactly as though there's a shortage of integers. Are numbers assigned only to proposals that are well liked? Isn't the point of assigning numbers so that we can have organized discussions about all proposals, even ones we don't like?
|
