BIP3: clarify number assignment

jonatack commented at 10:34 pm on October 28, 2025: member

There’s been confusion about this, so add the following clarification:

“A number may be considered assigned only after it has been publicly announced in the pull request by a BIP Editor.”

The following, for instance, should not constitute assignment of a BIP number:

an announcement on social media
a provisional entry to the internal editor notes, pending feedback from the other editors (the entry can be subsequently removed)

As well, BIP 2 already stipulates that assignment take place in the pull request:

* Assign a BIP number in the pull request.

bip3: clarify number assignment b13e4913b0

jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Oct 28, 2025

jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on Oct 28, 2025

ajtowns commented at 4:42 pm on October 29, 2025: contributor

Concept +1, but, alternatively, you could publish a canonical list of assigned numbers eg as a separate git repo (in which case editors could propose assignments as PRs) or as a wiki page (in which case proposed assignments would need to be out of band). That might make it slightly easier to go from “oh BIP xxx is assigned but not merged, which PR# was that again?”

jonatack commented at 5:59 pm on October 29, 2025: member

We do have a private git repo to coordinate assignments. Initially we opened PRs there, but it turned out that colleague feedback was easier to obtain in a different way. It was also suggested fairly early on to push to the repo directly. This worked fine until recently, but given recent events, I think it is best to clarify in BIP 3 at what moment a number is assigned, and IMO that moment should be publicly on the PR, like BIP 2, as proposed here and as I think we generally see it.

luke-jr commented at 6:14 pm on October 31, 2025: member

Weak concept NACK. This prevents issuing numbers to authors directly, which has historically been done. OTOH, it hasn’t been the practice recently since the de facto requirement for a PR, so maybe it’s fine. But in that case, Rationale should probably mention/justify it.

jonatack commented at 10:31 pm on November 4, 2025: member

Note that BIP 2 already stipulates that assignment take place in the pull request.

* Assign a BIP number in the pull request.

murchandamus approved

murchandamus commented at 10:52 pm on November 4, 2025: contributor

LGTM. This matches both what I considered to be the current modus operandi, and what I intended to happen for BIP 3. Thanks for catching that I overlooked stating it explicitly.

murchandamus commented at 11:22 pm on November 4, 2025: contributor

Weak concept NACK. This prevents issuing numbers to authors directly, which has historically been done. OTOH, it hasn’t been the practice recently since the de facto requirement for a PR, so maybe it’s fine. But in that case, Rationale should probably mention/justify it.

This practice appears to have led to several number assignments to ideas that never substantiated into written documents. It’s not clear to me why it would ever be necessary or advantageous to assign a number privately. Both BIP 2 and BIP 3 describe that a number assignment follows a properly formatted, high quality draft being submitted per a pull request, so it’s not undue to expect that a pull request exists at the time of a number assignment, and the corresponding pull request is obviously the appropriate place to announce the assignment (even explicitly stated in BIP 2).

murchandamus commented at 11:56 pm on November 6, 2025: contributor

I just realized that BIP 3 actually already has the same line as BIP 2 and had already specified that the number would be assigned in the PR:

I appreciate the additional clarification of mentioning it in another section, though.

This seems RFM to me?

in bip-0003.md:239 in b13e4913b0

235@@ -236,7 +236,8 @@ formatting requirements specified above and should be provided as a file named w
236 BIPs that (1) adhere to the formatting requirements, (2) are on-topic, and (3) have materially progressed beyond the
237 ideation phase, e.g., by generating substantial public discussion and commentary from diverse contributors, by
238 independent Bitcoin projects working on adopting the proposal, or by the authors working for an extended period toward
239-improving the proposal based on community feedback, will be assigned a number by a BIP Editor. The BIP Editors should
240+improving the proposal based on community feedback, will be assigned a number by a BIP Editor. A number may be

jonatack commented at 5:13 pm on November 7, 2025:

Would something like this be a good idea?

0improving the proposal based on community feedback, will be assigned a number by a BIP Editor after soliciting feedback among the editors and verifying rough consensus on the number. A number may be

murchandamus commented at 4:09 pm on November 10, 2025:

I think that’s just collegial and best practice. I think that can remain a norm, whereas when and where numbers are assigned is actually important. Obviously, if the same number were assigned twice, it would have to be rectified. This PR is good to go as is, will merge.

jonatack commented at 5:14 pm on November 7, 2025: member

I just realized that BIP 3 actually already has the same line as BIP 2

I hadn’t seen that, either.

I appreciate the additional clarification of mentioning it in another section, though.

Agree.

murchandamus approved

murchandamus commented at 4:19 pm on November 10, 2025: contributor

Given that both BIP 2 and BIP 3 had already specified that numbers are assigned in the PR, this text addition is only a clarification. The raised concern was addressed satisfactorily, so this is ready for merge.

murchandamus merged this on Nov 10, 2025

murchandamus closed this on Nov 10, 2025

jonatack deleted the branch on Nov 10, 2025

BIP3: clarify number assignment #2022