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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
