summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/14/b87868b86a75b462c815d09ed092f5bb880a3e
blob: a7233ae8ffc0be584c524a694b4c2d331c02e358 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1TdiKr-00025q-6y
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:09:57 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1TdiKl-0003tZ-UY
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:09:57 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z53so3937962wey.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:09:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.145.160 with SMTP id p32mr6484136wej.44.1354111785805;
	Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:09:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.27.136 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:09:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121128125710.GA9893@savin>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201211271703.39282.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0NZykzrvC1=YZv4czbu+EPaR3qpjQ2WZDsA8DhroR2_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<201211271726.56370.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2xww7=y0gSyW=oB734UJu2K1f5wB+UuovPO8mCENRzmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T13C4eFC9caTmCRm==YAESknX8xhhumb7Mg0mZNdzEosQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1wgMgo8N5f97KF6zNaPzoYVDU9Q=YABkz=jvTpM10jKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121128125710.GA9893@savin>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:09:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2urog-m4CDN21J=g1bN8hZO2vRAFJnvzMYxdXvSj1Ynw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1TdiKl-0003tZ-UY
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:09:57 -0000

RE: Changing SignedInvoice's invoice field to 'bytes serialized_invoice':

Good Idea, I agree it will avoid potential issues. I think it then
makes sense to pull the pki_type and pki_data into SignedInvoice, too,
and specify that the signature is on the SHA256-HMAC of pki_type,
pki_data, and serialized_invoice (being careful to combine them in a
way that is secure).

RE: Changing Payment to include just merchant_data and not the entire Invoice:

Agreed, good idea.


RE: Mr. Stanish's suggestion to punt all of this and wait for a Grand
Unified Solution:

No, we have problems that need a solution right now. And, having
written one (I was the lead author of the ISO/IEC 14772-1
international standard) I'm very pessimistic about your chances for
anything like IFEX to actually be adopted.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen