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
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
|
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 <jrn@jrn.me.uk>) id 1We5jj-0003cr-Q9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:45:59 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from s3.neomailbox.net ([178.209.62.157])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1We5ji-0005sY-4n
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:45:59 +0000
Message-ID: <535BE2BD.7010303@jrn.me.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:45:49 +0100
From: Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>, andreas@schildbach.de
References: <535ABD5D.7070509@jrn.me.uk>
<CABsx9T3boaWYuY8S-Xz=bAxe+ne5iP7m8AnuciaAOmDx_3D4Fg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3boaWYuY8S-Xz=bAxe+ne5iP7m8AnuciaAOmDx_3D4Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1We5ji-0005sY-4n
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Error handling in payment protocol
(BIP-0070 and BIP-0072)
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: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:45:59 -0000
Dear Gavin, Andreas,
I'd see standardisation (or at least suggested standards) for error
handling as positive for consistency of user experience. I do see what
you mean about over-specification, however.
Thanks for the feedback, I've taken the main points and created two pull
requests:
BIP-0070: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/54/
BIP-0072: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/55/
Please tell me if these need any further work.
Ross
On 26/04/14 14:23, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> The main area of concern is handling unexpected problems while sending
>> the Payment message, or receiving the corresponding PaymentACK message.
>> For example, in case of a transport layer failure or non-200 HTTP status
>> code while sending the Payment message, what should the wallet software
>> do next? Is it safe to re-send the Payment message? I'd propose that for
>> any transport failure or 500 status code, the client retries after a
>> delay (suggested at 30-60 seconds). For 400 status codes, the request
>> should not be repeated, and as such the user should be alerted and a
>> copy of the Payment message saved to be resent later.
>>
> Why does error handling have to be standardized?
>
> I generally think that wallet software should be free to do whatever gives
> the user the best experience, so I'm in favor of restricting BIPs to things
> that must be standardized so that different implementations inter-operate.
>
>
>> For 300 (redirect and similar) status codes, is it considered safe to
>> follow redirects? I think we have to, but good to make it clear in the
>> specification.
>>
> Referencing whatever RFCs defines how to fetch URLs would be the best way
> to do this. Submit a pull request.
>
>
>> On the merchant's side; I think it would be useful for there to be
>> guidance for handling of errors processing Payment messages. I'd suggest
>> that Payment messages should have a fixed maximum size to avoid merchant
>> systems theoretically having to accept files of any size; 10MB would
>> seem far larger than in any way practical, and therefore a good maximum
>> size?
>
> PaymentRequests are limited to 50,000 bytes. I can't think of a reason why
> Payment messages would need to be any bigger than that. Submit a pull
> request to the existing BIP.
>
>
>> A defined maximum time to wait (to avoid DDoS via connection
>> holding) might be useful too, although I'd need to do measurements to
>> find what values are tolerable.
>>
> Implementation detail that doesn't belong in the spec, in my humble opinion.
>
>
>> I would like to have the protocol state that merchant systems should
>> handle repeatedly receiving the same Payment message, and return an
>> equivalent (if not identical) PaymentACK to each. This is important in
>> case of a network failure while the client is sending the Payment
>> message, as outlined above.
>>
> I think this should be left to implementations to work out.
>
>
>> Lastly, I'm wondering about potential timing issues with transactions;
>> if a merchant system wants to see confirmation of a transaction before
>> sending a PaymentACK...
>
> .... not a good idea. The user should get feedback right away. Poking a
> "pay now" button and then waiting more than a second or three to get "your
> payment has been received and is being processed" is terrible UI.
>
>
|
