From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1V7BaY-0007CU-J4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:48:14 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk; helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1V7BaX-0007i7-2v for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:48:14 +0000 Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk (localhost.gnomon.org.uk [127.0.0.1]) by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r77Llv6t045309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:48:02 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy@darla.gnomon.org.uk) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at darla.gnomon.org.uk Received: (from roy@localhost) by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.1/Submit) id r77LlvM5045308; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:47:57 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:47:57 +0100 From: Roy Badami To: Gavin Andresen Message-ID: <20130807214757.GA45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1V7BaX-0007i7-2v Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:48:14 -0000 Very brief comment on BIP 72: I wonder if there should be some discussion included in the specification as to how the BIP 21 amount, message and label parameters should be processed when the payment protocol is used. Presumably amount should be completely ignored? But is the total amount requestd by the PaymentRequest required to match the amount parameter (when present)? Is the client permitted to complain if they don't? And what about message? Presumably the memo from PaymentDetails should take precedence, but if it's not present, and message is? I think this is an area perhaps more suited to SHOULDs and MAYs rather than MUSTs, but it is probably worthy of mention... roy