Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rqumt-0000oV-Jf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:00:55 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Rqums-0007y8-Bd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:00:55 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-164-217.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.164.217]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A150F5606F4; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:00:48 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Amir Taaki Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:00:29 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <1327704664.31621.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1327704664.31621.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201201271800.31819.luke@dashjr.org> 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 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1Rqums-0007y8-Bd Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 0020: URI Scheme X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:00:55 -0000 On Friday, January 27, 2012 5:51:04 PM Amir Taaki wrote: > BIP 0020 is the old URI scheme BIPisized. > > ATM it is Draft status. It's been Final (even according to BIP 1 standards) since late January 2011. The only change recently is assigning it a BIP number for formality. > I do not know enough about the discussion back last year to know whether to > move it to Accepted status or not. My feelings are that having a > re-decision (even if it was accepted last year) is healthy since it makes > no sense to have a standard before a standardisation process existed. Once P2SH is deployed, it will probably make good sense to revisit the URI Scheme for revision, and eventually move BIP 20 to Replaced/Superceded status.