Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Lightning Specification Meeting 2021/09/13 #909

Closed
5 of 19 tasks
t-bast opened this issue Sep 8, 2021 · 7 comments
Closed
5 of 19 tasks

Lightning Specification Meeting 2021/09/13 #909

t-bast opened this issue Sep 8, 2021 · 7 comments

Comments

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator

t-bast commented Sep 8, 2021

The meeting will take place on Monday 2021/09/13 at 8pm UTC on Libera Chat IRC #lightning-dev. It is open to the public.

Pull Request Review

Long Term Updates

Backlog

The following are topics that we should discuss at some point, so if we have time to discuss them great, otherwise they slip to the next meeting.

@t-bast t-bast pinned this issue Sep 8, 2021
@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Sep 8, 2021

As usual, don't hesitate to add/remove/reorder topics.

@cdecker
Copy link
Collaborator

cdecker commented Sep 13, 2021

#911 looks like a simple one to discuss (not implemented and thus not mergeable yes, but a good idea imho)

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Sep 13, 2021

Added to the PR list. I think it will probably slip to the next meeting though, since the PR was just submitted and I don't expect many people to have looked at it before the meeting?

@ryanthegentry
Copy link

I think #884 just needs a final ACK before merging? Does it need to be on the agenda or can the ACK happen async?

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Sep 13, 2021

I think #884 just needs a final ACK before merging?

Not yet, at least on my part it's not an ACK yet.

I think this comment indicates that we're still not sure whether this should be in the spec repo or a separate one. We should probably have some kind of vote to settle it (which means we need enough participants to have a meaningful vote).

And IMHO, we cannot merge this without including the "companion blip" that structures how to reserve scarce identifiers. This is only mentioned in blip-0001, but I think it's insufficient, we really need that before we can proceed.

I'm adding this to the agenda.

@ryanthegentry
Copy link

Yes I think there are differences of opinion on the "companion blip" - should there be a single central blip doc that replaces #605 and #716 and is referred to in the respective BOLTs? Or should the assignments be made into the BOLTs themselves (which is how I currently have it)? Looking forward to discussing in an hour!

@t-bast t-bast unpinned this issue Oct 6, 2021
@t-bast t-bast closed this as completed Oct 6, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants