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 CD4598A5 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:06:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0499107 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:06:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id l89so21618854lfi.1 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:06:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JtdDxqbzbaMc0diseQO89Xn00+9bPCnubxwacrT4/Ec=; b=GX9KlSeaa0iwr3JedEoLqxn9FCeCSV/pbPMPCcgvK15EFVzeWfPTRq52Yvs9CKHDWW o+bjWpIiIoO0RN4qeD2ZsQxlX+YNtF5UZO6wlEA9k5ELgZJLcbdN5xw8i+bmIvLtjRAE eKATalbH19Liy2P5CPh2gkbTZHOJGFHG/v+wcHxljA2YUiSXwyz0T89JVAZI0QAv9CoT WIXB/PJeRfzCLjn0j0UZ6u2DZqSuJaZLzcELS0vyrEltWxHb6Vhv2vut4FvM4Duo3jbG +l3Ju6S4iZCKVUPvJccXF3kOcskxwMNNP1EnSABZQwveGZmmsjqtf0STWBvjg4/baTx2 rbwg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JtdDxqbzbaMc0diseQO89Xn00+9bPCnubxwacrT4/Ec=; b=VP9bPGcjdh/DUw7hL0+zzIUO4quyzMzyGa7BgBx3ygX/YV8KquDCjezIdurk2SjM8U jAYdUR5HQfmg5Hggd0MYEBI/HtYYc77F6fQDCvorNPcw9h28+djdKMSLNLgkjF0+kxLz tzMAS1mH2HFIu8eflzLSX2m4xA4Fa74/DrEAmTHt6dGRWlzn0t3Ow6ptI0zWmLtXYhHG IHhj+r0wfQVvUe7Ja2deFPf4xFc5ckCxBuPH95L0lmA6wG1qxoiDa+1Sk5yurF4HXYHu 8Gesl20VvbaK2U1oM23uZoy+9PAgvJiUgg/Bgif+2zfmiizzgrABczoi4MaDq5sX2aOH o9pw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutWMyOysOaJqr9kxLd5cX/K1Oh8vizLOXRvH+WIwxyYK572erzWviPOKR5W2YnmVNMhBwXFusYv/fymGQ== X-Received: by 10.25.89.2 with SMTP id n2mr1110109lfb.208.1471561580034; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:06:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.24.153 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:05:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201607151531.00058.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201607151531.00058.luke@dashjr.org> From: Btc Drak Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 00:05:59 +0100 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114128363e42d6053a60a1aa X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:07:15 +0000 Cc: Mark Friedenbach , Nicolas Dorier , Thomas Kerin , github@dcousens.com 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 23:06:25 -0000 --001a114128363e42d6053a60a1aa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Fine by me to update BIP68 and BIP112 to Final status. The forks have activated. On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > Daniel Cousens opened the issue a few weeks ago, that BIP 9 should > progress to > Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clear > on > whether it falls in the Draft/Accepted/Final classification of proposals > requiring implementation, or the Draft/Active classification like process > BIPs. Background of this discussion is at: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/413 > (Discussion on the GitHub BIPs repo is *NOT* recommended, hence bringing > this > topic to the mailing list) > > Reviewing the criteria for status changes, my opinion is that: > - BIPs 68, 112, 113, and 141 are themselves implementations of BIP 9 > -- therefore, BIP 9 falls under the Draft/Accepted/Final class > - BIPs 68, 112, and 113 have been deployed to the network successfully > -- therefore, BIP 9 has satisfied the conditions of not only Accepted > status, > but also Final status > -- therefore, BIPs 68, 112, and 113 also ought to be Final status > > If there are no objections, I plan to update the status to Final for BIPs > 9, > 68, 112, and 113 in one month. Since all four BIPs are currently Draft, I > also > need at least one author from each BIP to sign-off on promoting them to > (and > beyond) Accepted. > > BIP 9: Pieter Wuille > Peter Todd > Greg Maxwell > Rusty Russell > > BIP 68: Mark Friedenbach > BtcDrak > Nicolas Dorier > kinoshitajona > > BIP 112: BtcDrak > Mark Friedenbach > Eric Lombrozo > > BIP 113: Thomas Kerin > Mark Friedenbach > --001a114128363e42d6053a60a1aa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Fine by me to update BIP6= 8 and BIP112 to Final status. The forks have activated.

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:= 30 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
Daniel Cousens opened the issue a few weeks ago, that BIP 9= should progress to
Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clear = on
whether it falls in the Draft/Accepted/Final classification of proposals requiring implementation, or the Draft/Active classification like process BIPs. Background of this discussion is at:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/413<= /a>
(Discussion on the GitHub BIPs repo is *NOT* recommended, hence bringing th= is
topic to the mailing list)

Reviewing the criteria for status changes, my opinion is that:
- BIPs 68, 112, 113, and 141 are themselves implementations of BIP 9
-- therefore, BIP 9 falls under the Draft/Accepted/Final class
- BIPs 68, 112, and 113 have been deployed to the network successfully
-- therefore, BIP 9 has satisfied the conditions of not only Accepted statu= s,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0but also Final status
-- therefore, BIPs 68, 112, and 113 also ought to be Final status

If there are no objections, I plan to update the status to Final for BIPs 9= ,
68, 112, and 113 in one month. Since all four BIPs are currently Draft, I a= lso
need at least one author from each BIP to sign-off on promoting them to (an= d
beyond) Accepted.

BIP=C2=A0 =C2=A09: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Greg Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

BIP=C2=A0 68: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Nicolas Dorier <nicolas.dorier@gmail.com> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0kinoshitajona <kinoshitajona@gmail.com>

BIP 112: BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>

BIP 113: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin.io>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>

--001a114128363e42d6053a60a1aa--