<p>BIP's and RFC's are similar in that they</p>
<ul>
<li>debate an implementation in the community in order to improve it, and</li>
<li>produce documentation that's useful to other coders.</li>
</ul>
<p>However, they're different in a lot of other ways. This is largely because the two solve different problems: RFC's usually invent new protocols, whereas BIP's amend an existing system.</p>
<p>Other differences:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>An RFC with a specific serial number always refers to a specific version of that document. If the RFC changes (and the change isn't something tiny, like spelling), it is assigned a new number.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a BIP is expected to go through multiple major revisions in the Draft stage. Changes are instead tracked through version control.</p>
</li>
<li><p>The <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2223#section-2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RFC approval process</a> and the <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki#BIP_Work_Flow" rel="nofollow noreferrer">BIP approval process</a> are different.</p>
</li>
<li><p>RFC's have <em>authors</em>, BIP's have <em>champions</em>. This isn't just a difference in terminology. The champion of a BIP needs to convince other people that it's a good idea before it will be accepted, whereas the RFC process is much less restrictive.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>See also:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/32083/who-specified-the-bitcoin-protocol/32085#32085">Who specified the Bitcoin protocol?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/5640/how-is-a-bip-accepted/18082#18082">How is a BIP accepted?</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-12-13T02:47:49.337Z
2014-12-13T02:47:49.337Z
2021-10-07T07:34:52.683Z
Nick ODell
<p>It seems that a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) is very similar to an RFC (Request for Comments). Can anybody confirm this, or describe major differences in the two approaches?</p>

<terminology><bip>
Is BIP analogous to RFC?
darren
# Is BIP analogous to RFC?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-12-12)

It seems that a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) is very similar to an RFC (Request for Comments). Can anybody confirm this, or describe major differences in the two approaches?

**Tags:** terminology, bip


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-12-13. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

BIP's and RFC's are similar in that they

* debate an implementation in the community in order to improve it, and
* produce documentation that's useful to other coders.

However, they're different in a lot of other ways. This is largely because the two solve different problems: RFC's usually invent new protocols, whereas BIP's amend an existing system.

Other differences:

* An RFC with a specific serial number always refers to a specific version of that document. If the RFC changes (and the change isn't something tiny, like spelling), it is assigned a new number.

  On the other hand, a BIP is expected to go through multiple major revisions in the Draft stage. Changes are instead tracked through version control.
* The [RFC approval process](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2223#section-2) and the [BIP approval process](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki#BIP_Work_Flow) are different.
* RFC's have *authors*, BIP's have *champions*. This isn't just a difference in terminology. The champion of a BIP needs to convince other people that it's a good idea before it will be accepted, whereas the RFC process is much less restrictive.

See also:

* [Who specified the Bitcoin protocol?](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/32083/who-specified-the-bitcoin-protocol/32085#32085)
* [How is a BIP accepted?](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/5640/how-is-a-bip-accepted/18082#18082)


---

