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
|
Return-Path: <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CBD8412
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:21:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f177.google.com (mail-qk0-f177.google.com
[209.85.220.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 929BC1A5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:21:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qkbm65 with SMTP id m65so115865755qkb.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc
:content-type;
bh=rW2OyN/cyIBJioQuFzy4ObybOgywIeSUVaQ1f6ekBNo=;
b=X9MnsJpcxc8yBrcg9iIkpHyJ1tUY3UdjC9+EzQQflJRTq5MBvb9mjyh5WkpcTPiW0z
Dx/74r9g3l/KWcfPAbRJRVSOJKmzicTaJYLyJ6QhuvzPZ4Y/hEdwk5iprvYTKwRwQfPg
hygws+k1PzQ9KKrYXGI73ZKg6XHlDUoNzv+aylC6ni0jKa0825+77CTU740z8N/TUICx
sDr2bJEcEV9ZnneVfHriGRBu2bioICGw5xYLB1CEMNPD7rzK1yfro3K80fqEuS3qoe3e
Nj4+jyztUYZC9k3gQiOHzpPj2aqUS5MMmD6gc8xQPsyKkh+otVcJHEkj2qQ8fmkY26JC
9P7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQle4mfCdRRJ013NBvduUXeDSZeETfLHU97OsKKBR0vndF+lSj8s2+zn3mJdYzQAcaoN3j6/
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.133.135 with SMTP id 129mr10919336qhf.54.1437646915832;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.127.227 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:21:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPswA9yU8MkbS_7CkJBmRTTxBdZ+2fx7FetGaqeHMZGG0G=1eA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
To: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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: [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 10:21:57 -0000
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.
There are a number of BIP proposals floating arount right now, I don't
know the exact status of them all, but this is roughly how it looks
for some of them:
Date of request, bip#, Author, Title
july 4, -, Gregory Maxwell, Invalid Block Fork Postmortem
june 29, -, Peter Todd, Full Replace-by-Fee Deployment Schedule
june 22, 101, Gavin Andresen, Increase Maximum Block Size
june 17, 68, Mark Friedenbach, Consensus-enforced transaction
replacement signalled via sequence numbers
june 6, -,Kalle Rosenbaum, Proof of Payment
june 6, -,Kalle Rosenbaum, Proof of Payment URI scheme
june 6, 69?, Kristov Atlas, Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction
Inputs and Outputs
I think that the de facto process for BIP allocation and inclusion in
the bips repository is unclear. When a number is requested, the author
should at least get a reply from the bip editor that the request is
seen by him/her. Also, if the editor disapproves on the BIP for some
reason, the author must be notified somehow within reasonable and
predictable time.
Regards,
Kalle
|
