[bitcoin-dev] New BIP editor, and request for information

[bitcoin-dev] New BIP editor, and request for information

[Luke Dashjr]

Greg has requested that I take over as the BIP editor responsible for 
assigning BIP numbers. Before I begin, I would like to ensure I have a correct 
record of what has already been assigned or soft-assigned so I don't overlap 
them, as the BIPs repository appears that it may possibly be incomplete.

If you have been assigned (or soft-assigned) a BIP number - or any other 
information that may be relevant to my performing this role, please reply and 
let me know, preferably within the next 24 hours if possible (as there are 
many BIP drafts awaiting assignments).

Getting into some specifics...

- BIP 46 is missing from the repository, but apparently self-soft-assigned by 
Tier Nolan in https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-April/005545.html ; if this was later assigned official, or if he is still 
interested in pursuing this, it seems logical to just keep it at BIP 46.

- BIPs 80 and 81 are currently part of an open pull request 
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/170, but it is unclear if they were 
formally assigned or not.

- BIP 82 is currently officially assigned and pending in 
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/171 ; I personally think this is outside 
the scope of BIPs since it does not deal with Bitcoin, and encourage Justus to 
move it to the SLIP standard, but will honour this assignment unless he tells 
me he is moving it. (But understand this will not set a precedent for strictly 
non-Bitcoin things being assigned BIPs...)

- BIP 100 is missing from the repository, and I am uncertain if it was ever 
properly assigned. Considering that the 10x block has mostly been used for 
similar proposals, and BIP 100 is fairly well-established as "BIP 100", it 
seems logical to just make this its official assignment.

- BIP 104 is missing from the repository, but was apparently used unofficially 
by https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBX3hCekFRSUVySWs/view at one 
time. But I do not see an actual specification in this PDF, so as far as I 
know BIP 104 appears to be available?

- BIP 109 was soft-assigned for 
https://gist.github.com/erasmospunk/23040383b7620b525df0, but as this doesn't 
fit with the rest of 10x, I am inclined to give it a new number outside that 
range unless there are objections.

- BIP 122 is missing from the repository, and was self-soft-assigned by Chris 
Priest for "ScaleNet" in https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/222 ; there are 
concerns whether testnets are appropriate for standardisation at all, but 
since it has received sufficient discussion on the mailing list and others 
appear to agree with the effort, it seems reasonable to err in favour of 
assigning it a BIP number (not necessarily 122) if Chris wishes to further 
pursue the idea and add an actual specification to the draft.

To be clear: except for BIPs 82 and 109, and those appearing in the 
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips repository at present, anyone (preferably the 
author, but not necessarily if they are away) aware of any other BIP 
assignments should reply to this message indicating the status of such BIPs 
and their assigned numbers.

Thanks,

Luke

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP editor, and request for information

[Tier Nolan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 844 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> - BIP 46 is missing from the repository, but apparently self-soft-assigned
> by
> Tier Nolan in
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-April/005545.html
> ; if this was later assigned official, or if he is still
> interested in pursuing this, it seems logical to just keep it at BIP 46.
>

I was never officially assigned any number for this.

Subsequent P2SH changes give the required functionality in an alternative
way.  This renders the BIP obsolete.

I suggest marking the number as nonassignable, in order to prevent
confusion with archive searches.  I assume that new BIP numbers will be
greater than 100 anyway.

As was pointed out at the time, I shouldn't have used a number in the
original git branch before being assigned it officially.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1315 bytes --]