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
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
|
Return-Path: <dave@dtrt.org>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1137C0037
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:50:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1E383E96
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:50:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org BF1E383E96
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id uyjdSh92r7-B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:50:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 553 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at util1.osuosl.org;
Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:50:32 UTC
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org DA36083E46
Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (smtpauth.rollernet.us [208.79.240.5])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA36083E46
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:50:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A23B280085F;
Thu, 18 Jan 2024 07:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.rollernet.us (webmail.rollernet.us
[IPv6:2607:fe70:0:14::a])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(Client did not present a certificate)
by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA;
Thu, 18 Jan 2024 07:41:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 05:41:14 -1000
From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <Zac+rMC/c+qTmSxY@erisian.com.au>
References: <Zac+rMC/c+qTmSxY@erisian.com.au>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.15
Message-ID: <6f3ce219d7df09c80e8063579555de06@dtrt.org>
X-Sender: dave@dtrt.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Rollernet-Abuse: Contact abuse@rollernet.us to report. Abuse policy:
http://www.rollernet.us/policy
X-Rollernet-Submit: Submit ID 37ed.65a9469a.b9460.0
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP process friction
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:50:34 -0000
On 2024-01-16 16:42, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'm switching inquisition over to having a dedicated "IANA"-ish
> thing that's independent of BIP process nonsense. It's at:
>
> * https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/binana
>
> If people want to use it for bitcoin-related proposals that don't have
> anything to do with inquisition, that's fine
Thank you for doing this!
Question: is there a recommended way to produce a shorter identifier for
inline use in reading material? For example, for proposal
BIN-2024-0001-000, I'm thinking:
- BIN24-1 (references whatever the current version of the proposal is)
- BIN24-1.0 (references revision 0)
I think that doesn't look too bad even if there are over 100 proposals a
year, with some of them getting into over a hundred revisions:
- BIN24-123
- BIN24-123.123
Rationale:
- Using "BIN" for both full-length and shortened versions makes it
explicit which document set we're talking about
- Eliminating the first dash losslessly saves space and reduces visual
clutter
- Shortening a four-digit year to two digits works for the next 75
years. Adding more digits as necessary after that won't produce any
ambiguity
- Although I'd like to eliminate the second dash, and it wouldn't
introduce any ambiguity in machine parsing for the next 175 years, I
think it would lead to people interpreting numbers incorrectly. E.g.,
"BIN241" would be read "BIN two-hundred fourty-one" instead of a more
desirable "BIN twenty-four dash one"
- Eliminating prefix zeroes in the proposal and revision numbers
losslessly saves space and reduces visual clutter
- A decimal point between the proposal number and revision number
creates less visual clutter than the third dash and still conveys the
intended meaning
- Overall, for the typical case I'd expect---BIN proposals numbered 1-99
with no mention of revision---this produces strings only one or two or
characters longer than a typical modern BIP number in shortened format,
e.g. BIN24-12 versus BIP123.
Thoughts?
-Dave
|
