Yes, it makes sense. A BIP is something people refer to, either just by its number or by URL, and with multiple orthogonal "sub-BIPs" it's difficult to refer to. We have this problem with BIP32 already -- all HD wallets implement the derivation part of BIP32 but almost none do implement the hierarchy part (and use BIP43/44 instead). I tried to split up BIP32 into two BIPs later (without any content changes), but it was declined because of its final state.
There is no harm in using a BIP only for a small thing, BIP numbers are infinite. On 03/11/2016 08:32 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote: > That's a valid point, and one we had thought of, which is why I wanted > to get everyone's opinion. I agree the proposed field extensions have > nothing to do with encryption, but does it make sense to propose a > completely separate BIP for such a small thing? If that is the accepted > way to go, we can split it into two and make a separate proposal. > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:48 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original idea of this BIP with > other extensions. Other extensions should go to separate BIPs, > especially since methods to clarify the fee have nothing to do with > secure and authenticated bi-directional BIP70 communication. > > > On 03/10/2016 10:43 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > Our BIP (officially proposed on March 1) has tentatively been assigned > > number 75. Also, the title has been changed to "Out of Band Address > > Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption" to be more accurate. > > > > We thought it would be good to take this opportunity to add some > > optional fields to the BIP70 paymentDetails message. The new > fields are: > > subtractable fee (give permission to the sender to use some of the > > requested amount towards the transaction fee), fee per kb (the minimum > > fee required to be accepted as zeroconf), and replace by fee > (whether or > > not a transaction with the RBF flag will be accepted with zeroconf). I > > know it doesn't make much sense for merchants to accept RBF with > > zeroconf, so that last one might be used more to explicitly refuse RBF > > transactions (and allow the automation of choosing a setting based on > > who you are transacting with). > > > > I see BIP75 as a general modernization of BIP70, so I think it > should be > > fine to include these extensions in the new BIP, even though these > > fields are not specific to the features we are proposing. Please > take a > > look at the relevant section and let me know if anyone has any > concerns: > > > > https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails > > > > The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated. > > > > Thanks! > > > > James > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
