Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113

Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113
2016-07-15 16:31 ` Peter Todd
  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2016-07-15 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

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 <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
         Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
         Greg Maxwell <greg@xiph•org>
         Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>

BIP  68: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
         BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
         Nicolas Dorier <nicolas.dorier@gmail•com>
         kinoshitajona <kinoshitajona@gmail•com>

BIP 112: BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
         Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
         Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com>

BIP 113: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin•io>
         Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-07-15 16:08 [bitcoin-dev] Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113 Luke Dashjr

  
From: Peter Todd @ 2016-07-15 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2177 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 04:08:51PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev 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)

As of writing the text of BIP68 says:

    'This BIP is to be deployed by "versionbits" BIP9 using bit 0.'

Essentially including BIP9 as part of the BIP68 standard; BIP68 could have
equally been written by including some or all of the text of BIP9. If it had
done that, that text would be part of a "Standard BIP" rather than
"Informational BIP", thus I'll argue that BIP9 should also be a "Standard BIP"

Also, note that if we ever modified BIP9, we'd most likely do so with a new
BIP, and in soft-forks using that new standard, would refer to the new BIP #.

> 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 <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
>          Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
>          Greg Maxwell <greg@xiph•org>
>          Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>

ACK "Final" status.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2016-08-18 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

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


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]


  
From: Btc Drak @ 2016-08-18 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev;  Mark Friedenbach, Nicolas Dorier, Thomas Kerin, github

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2011 bytes --]

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 <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:
>     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 <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
>          Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
>          Greg Maxwell <greg@xiph•org>
>          Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
>
> BIP  68: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
>          BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
>          Nicolas Dorier <nicolas.dorier@gmail•com>
>          kinoshitajona <kinoshitajona@gmail•com>
>
> BIP 112: BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
>          Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
>          Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com>
>
> BIP 113: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin•io>
>          Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3416 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]