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 0CBD8412 for ; 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 ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:21:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkbm65 with SMTP id m65so115865755qkb.2 for ; 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: From: Kalle Rosenbaum To: bitcoin-dev 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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