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 <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1VipMt-0001Pp-ST for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:45:43 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.42; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-bk0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-bk0-f42.google.com ([209.85.214.42]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VipMs-0001rn-V5 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:45:43 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f42.google.com with SMTP id w11so1089406bkz.1 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:45:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.205.15.72 with SMTP id pt8mr16784057bkb.17.1384883136425; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:45:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.71.206 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:45:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgREw+5NWaFVYd9FS-s63_-24tyWsz5_w6yc8+mGnFYUgQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJHLa0MCJzFapBYu+cGcJobeVkuS3yibpgaEJOmEj5-1wWEDYA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+s+GJDnCx4ZT5woovB-MsKfHOqNoC9WefKQ-VMpWHCZrat5Kw@mail.gmail.com> <CANAnSg1eH8+sY6n4-cptdzS5Qj0aXdN_d8h8B9joyk73HGL6ZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAS2fgREw+5NWaFVYd9FS-s63_-24tyWsz5_w6yc8+mGnFYUgQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:45:36 +0100 Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAW9j88VWNgmpXTjeSFOxHHzow82E2pyvyfKr=SRcS-Kg@mail.gmail.com> From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301cbd5c6719da04eb8b3bbb X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: github.com] -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 (laanwj[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: 1VipMs-0001rn-V5 Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal 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: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:45:44 -0000 --20cf301cbd5c6719da04eb8b3bbb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Drak <drak@zikula.org> wrote: > > It's quite normal for standards bodies to allocate numbers when in draft > > status. If they don't pass, they don't pass - they are clearly labelled > > DRAFTs. > > > > +1 on having things in a github repository. Much better for > collaboration, > > The IETF makes a clear distinction between individual proposals and > documents which have been accepted by a working group. The former are > named after their authors. Work is not assigned a number until it is > complete. > Talking about complete, BIP 40 and 41 don't even have an associated document: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips I agree that was over-eager number assigning. Wladimir --20cf301cbd5c6719da04eb8b3bbb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail= _quote">On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr">= <<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.= com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-= left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8= :53 AM, Drak <<a href=3D"mailto:drak@zikula.org">drak@zikula.org</a>>= wrote:<br> > It's quite normal for standards bodies to allocate numbers when in= draft<br> > status. If they don't pass, they don't pass - they are clearly= labelled<br> > DRAFTs.<br> ><br> > +1 on having things in a github repository. Much better for collaborat= ion,<br> <br> The IETF makes a clear distinction between individual proposals and<br> documents which have been accepted by a working group. The former are<br> named after their authors. =C2=A0Work is not assigned a number until it is<= br> complete.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Talking about complete, BIP 4= 0 and 41 don't even have an associated document:<br><a href=3D"https://= github.com/bitcoin/bips">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips</a><br></div><div> I agree that was over-eager number assigning.<br></div><div><br>Wladimir<br= ><br></div></div></div></div> --20cf301cbd5c6719da04eb8b3bbb--