From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) 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 ; 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: <201211271703.39282.andyparkins@gmail.com> <201211271726.56370.andyparkins@gmail.com> <20121128125710.GA9893@savin> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:09:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Peter Todd 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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