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
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1VipVZ-00059n-Qc
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:54:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.41 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.41; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f41.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VipVY-0004Pl-Vt
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:54:41 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id eo20so304416lab.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:54:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.210.197 with SMTP id mw5mr1699731lbc.42.1384883674227;
Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.63.162 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:54:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJAW9j88VWNgmpXTjeSFOxHHzow82E2pyvyfKr=SRcS-Kg@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>
<CA+s+GJAW9j88VWNgmpXTjeSFOxHHzow82E2pyvyfKr=SRcS-Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:54:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgROsymXnXTrfLTLTQ=EDwaAFu+xrrD4Q-Gye5XWze7vFw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
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.
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
(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
X-Headers-End: 1VipVY-0004Pl-Vt
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 17:54:42 -0000
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Maybe! The subject matter its assigned for is already _widely_
deployed, for better or worse.
(by comparison in the IETF, informational RFCs for already widely
deployed things are issued pretty liberally)
I'm not sure how we should be distinguish BIPs which are documenting
things which are already defacto standards vs ones which are proposing
that people do something new.
Mostly I think we don't want the BIP itself being a lever to force
something down people's throats, but rather the process should help
build consensus and review about how to do something=E2=80=94 and then
document that consensus.
|
