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 4A377941 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:09:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (unknown [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD17130 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:09:05 +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 44F3638A17C8 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:09:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160818:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::NJ3OQTEtjwBdNkFo:qwYR To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: Luke Dashjr Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:09:00 +0000 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201608182109.01522.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:09:06 -0000 On Friday, July 15, 2016 4:46:57 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:52:37PM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 3:46:28 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > > > I'm not sure why it is labeled as only "Informational" in the first > > > place, as BIP9 is part of the consensus logic. > > > > Only by proxy/inclusion from another BIP, such as 68, 112, and 113. In > > other words, BIP 9 is informational in that it advises how other BIPs > > might deploy themselves. > > It's a bit of grey area, as indeed, only the BIPs that are actual softforks > are consensus changes - which employ this mechanism for deployment. But I > think such an important deployment mechanism, which is supposed to be used > by all softforks from now onwards, shouldn't just be an informational BIP. As things stand right now, none of the Authors have commented on changing the type. It has been a month, and I am prepared to change the status to Final or Active; but I am unclear if your comments were an objection to changing the status or not. Last call: Does anyone mind if I update BIP 9 to Final status? Luke