From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YGS05-0003KY-U2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:45:41 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.172; envelope-from=nicolas.dorier@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YGS05-0001ek-1h for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:45:41 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id h11so11598527wiw.5 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 04:45:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.96.4 with SMTP id do4mr6755389wib.46.1422449129918; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 04:45:29 -0800 (PST) Sender: slashene@gmail.com X-Google-Sender-Delegation: slashene@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.92.112 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 04:45:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:45:29 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SLhLWcRUu8zp1ZMtfaQLbUu5E2A Message-ID: From: Nicolas DORIER To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428f0019972c050db5bfb0 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (nicolas.dorier[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1YGS05-0001ek-1h Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: why Google Protocol Buffers for encoding? 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 Jan 2015 12:45:42 -0000 --f46d04428f0019972c050db5bfb0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree that the use protocol buffer and x509 by BIP70 is a poor choice. The choice should have been done to maximize portability, not to maximize efficiency and flexibility. What I ended up doing for having a similar codebase on all plateform is to parse a BIP70 messages with the help of a web service that convert it to JSON. I don't like this solution since it had a trust dependency, and the certificate verification become handled by the web service, not the device. But even if I solved google buffer problem, I would stumble upon having headache to validate the x509 certificate chain on every plateforms. A simple BIP70 using JSON + HTTPS would have make things more easy. I agree that it requires that the merchant own the domain name of the BIP70 endpoint, but I don't consider such a big of a deal, since this is how e-commerce works. --f46d04428f0019972c050db5bfb0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree that the use protocol buffer and x509 by= BIP70 is a poor choice.

The choice should have been done to m= aximize portability, not to maximize efficiency and flexibility.

What I ended up doing for having a similar codebase on all platefor= m is to parse a BIP70 messages with the help of a web service that convert = it to JSON.
I don't like this solution since it had a tru= st dependency, and the certificate verification become handled by the web s= ervice, not the device. But even if I solved google buffer problem, I would= stumble upon having headache to validate the x509 certificate chain on eve= ry plateforms.

A simple BIP70 using JSON + HTT= PS would have make things more easy.
I agree that it requires= that the merchant own the domain name of the BIP70 endpoint, but I don'= ;t consider such a big of a deal, since this is how e-commerce works.
--f46d04428f0019972c050db5bfb0--