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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6982640D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:29:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149058.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149058.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.149.58])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA272157
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:29:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t6NJTGZa064091;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:29:16 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [25.247.241.57] ([72.143.231.246]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t6NJTAwK067886
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:29:12 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPswA9yU8MkbS_7CkJBmRTTxBdZ+2fx7FetGaqeHMZGG0G=1eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPswA9yU8MkbS_7CkJBmRTTxBdZ+2fx7FetGaqeHMZGG0G=1eA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:29:05 +0000
To: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>,
Kalle Rosenbaum via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <E1C2C971-03EB-47F6-9879-D6EC659404D4@petertodd.org>
X-Server-Quench: 1a07f7f1-3171-11e5-b397-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAEUEkAYAgsB AmMbWVReUlR7WGc7 bAhPbAFefEhNXhto
VE5WRlRXCwQmRRp/ fHpvFWJycQJOcHg+ bEVrXD5aDUR9I0Er
Q1NXFGoHeGZhPWUC AkNRcB5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd ehsKJl8JWg4FGSR0 bTE6VTMyGEcIXW06
KxghIVcAHUEXWgAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 72.143.231.246/465
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Process for BIP number allocation
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 23 Jul 2015 19:29:18 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 23 July 2015 06:21:55 GMT-04:00, Kalle Rosenbaum via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Hi all
>
>I suggest that we add to the "BIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow"
>section of BIP0001 that if the BIP editor for some reason won't handle
>the BIP within a week, he/she should notify the author within that
>same week with an estimate on when it will be handled.
>
>Maybe we could extend it to two weeks instead, the important thing is
>that the author knows what to expect.
>
>I'm trying to get BIP numbers allocated for Proof of Payment. I have
>requested it from the BIP editor Gregory Maxwell with CC this list. I
>also emailed Gregory in private about it. So far I have not seen any
>reaction to my requests.
To be clear, where is an implementation of your proposed BIP?
The philosophy of the process - particularly for non-consensus BIPs - is running code, preferably in production. An actual number for the standard that code implements isn't a barrier to that process.
Remember that it's convenient for all if the number of BIPs out there isn't significantly higher than the number of actual standards in place that are being used.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVsUBy
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAI11FdNBCFr9TybCvxKS32Idk4aZ4fveJ6ucHZx1PWPl
lzoz/CJBZGolWF9jWnpyiCnNxl64MjflNxi62ZD+VS4SEl0uHcYXdqXsNQzk9OoK
bZFXHJ57jZlHCwpwiLM72EWN6AZG/XZZFXisNRAvoYqryHdb5dDmVok0wPH87qOH
PBTlspyaKH4/OFDpslCdoDTLHcMxlasiyqNdC5NxC7eB1WpEtyGbOd1twvNeNH00
1opJNuajiUm1vJEhMS67a9DhfnYf9/3TDRtkc0lrYfF3r1n2aVtyzlPcJANX/cWa
7L9HtC4WpVLqny0AiTs5dK6DxPIUy/u2Q9yFZ2oL6dM=
=RW4h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
