Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-vx0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:29:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQpMWYLoT_1Za5AxvgNaXvEuJOZ2BjE94o09=t+LyfM5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP language on normative behavior
Precedence: list

I've been arguing with Luke-JR on IRC about the interpenetration of
BIP_0014=E2=80=94  Gavin's recent commit uses the same version string for t=
he
GUI interface and the daemon mode.

Luke believes this is a _violation_ of BIP_0014 and an error in
judgement on Gavin's part, and a failure to conform to the community
adopted standard. I believe Luke is mistaken: that BIP_0014 actually
don't have mandatory requirements for what you put in the version
field and even if it did, that they are in fact the same software and
should have the same name.

I don't think an agreement is likely on the second point, but the
first point highlights some ambiguity in the interpretation of BIP
language. E.g. What is permitted vs encouraged vs required.

There is well established standard language for this purpose:

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

I strongly recommend that all BIPs be written using the RFC2119
keywords where appropriate.