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 1UV2hI-0000R1-CT
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:37:32 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.217.177; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-lb0-f177.google.com; 
Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UV2hB-00064Q-Nx
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:37:32 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x10so1922336lbi.22
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.4.233 with SMTP id n9mr18075489lbn.63.1366821439023;
	Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.10.40 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0Apu=ice=QdQpOb3LVTv9HcTjTmbb5KzZ3+o8CuF3kzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP2OPU8cpvUJ0B8z00PPp6jOGCjQ1ipZ9mq8_LSLo4Rebg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0Apu=ice=QdQpOb3LVTv9HcTjTmbb5KzZ3+o8CuF3kzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:37:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRtq5J4HAeQGTfKc+vQZ9eo1Qw4nc=t2_Pu3KAuE_3WGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-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: 1UV2hB-00064Q-Nx
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP21 bitcoin URIs and HTML5
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: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:37:32 -0000

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ian pointed out some errors in the BIP21 spec. What's the process for
>> amending the BIP? Do we need to create a new one and mark the old one as
>> replaced, or can we just fix it in place given the relatively exotic nature
>> of most of the issues?
> Those all sound like bugs in the BIP; I think they should just be fixed, I
> don't think we need a new BIP.

Yup.  Corrections are fine, esp ones which are not gratuitously incompatible.