From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78AEDC43 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 17:11:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2811AC for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 17:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E801238A928F; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 17:10:58 +0000 (UTC) From: Luke Dashjr To: Bitcoin Dev Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 17:10:55 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201601071710.57868.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Gregory Maxwell , "John L. Jegutanis" Subject: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP editor, and request for information X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 17:11:01 -0000 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