Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YVqOG-0000jT-1R for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:50:16 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.180; envelope-from=pindar.wong@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com ([74.125.82.180]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YVqOE-0006xl-MB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:50:16 +0000 Received: by wesk11 with SMTP id k11so12687450wes.13 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:50:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.109.9 with SMTP id ho9mr80675368wjb.29.1426117808251; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.156.166 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:50:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55002AD9.2060006@thomaskerin.io> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 07:50:08 +0800 Message-ID: From: Pindar Wong To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf10a125e67b205110bed08 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (pindar.wong[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1YVqOE-0006xl-MB Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for standard multi-signature P2SH addresses X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:50:16 -0000 --047d7bf10a125e67b205110bed08 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Understood... perhaps just add something like: 'After copy-editing and acceptance,* a BIP number is assigned* and it will be published here.'? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals p. On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Pindar Wong > wrote: > > Perhaps at some point consider introducing something akin to a > > 'Bitcoin-Draft' (BD) status with some autoexpiry period? > > > > I understand that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has the > > concept of 'Internet Drafts" (ID) and this looks like it has worked for > them > > so far. > > Thats more or less what posting to the list is supposed to be. > Creating a draft document requires no approval, beyond filling out the > right form. > > Perhaps calling out that as a distinct step would be better, indeed. > --047d7bf10a125e67b205110bed08 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Understood... perhaps just add something like:
'After copy-editing and acceptance, a BIP number is assigned= and it will be published here.'?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitco= in_Improvement_Proposals

p.


On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at= 7:34 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:24= PM, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@g= mail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps at some point consider introducing something akin to a
> 'Bitcoin-Draft' (BD) status with some autoexpiry period?
>
> I understand that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)=C2=A0 has= the
> concept of 'Internet Drafts" (ID) and this looks like it has = worked for them
> so far.

Thats more or less what posting to the list is supposed to be.
Creating a draft document requires no approval, beyond filling out the
right form.

Perhaps calling out that as a distinct step would be better, indeed.

--047d7bf10a125e67b205110bed08--