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
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1UV13F-0000x7-DM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:52:05 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.83.51 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.83.51; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ee0-f51.google.com;
Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UV13E-00049U-GC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:52:05 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c4so786185eek.38
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.15.98.141 with SMTP id bj13mr63913579eeb.29.1366815118014;
Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.96.132 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2OPU8cpvUJ0B8z00PPp6jOGCjQ1ipZ9mq8_LSLo4Rebg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP2OPU8cpvUJ0B8z00PPp6jOGCjQ1ipZ9mq8_LSLo4Rebg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:51:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0Apu=ice=QdQpOb3LVTv9HcTjTmbb5KzZ3+o8CuF3kzg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e016814e2955f9c04db1c71fc
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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
X-Headers-End: 1UV13E-00049U-GC
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP21 bitcoin URIs and HTML5
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: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:52:05 -0000
--089e016814e2955f9c04db1c71fc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Ian pointed out some errors in the BIP21 spec. What's the process for
amending the BIP? Do we need to create a new one and mark the old one as
replaced, or can we just fix it in place given the relatively exotic nature
of most of the issues?
Those all sound like bugs in the BIP; I think they should just be fixed, I
don't think we need a new BIP.
I vote for a new meta-data item in the BIP header:
Corrected: <date>
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--089e016814e2955f9c04db1c71fc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Ian pointed out some errors in the BIP21 spec. What's the process =
for amending the BIP? Do we need to create a new one and mark the old one a=
s replaced, or can we just fix it in place given the relatively exotic natu=
re of most of the issues?<div>
<br></div><div>Those all sound like bugs in the BIP; I think they should ju=
st be fixed, I don't think we need a new BIP.</div><div><br></div><div>=
I vote for a new meta-data item in the BIP header:</div><div><br></div>
<div>=A0 Corrected: <date><br><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andre=
sen<br>
</div>
--089e016814e2955f9c04db1c71fc--
|
