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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <rnbrady@gmail.com>) id 1YDHou-0005EK-03 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 19:17:04 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.49; envelope-from=rnbrady@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YDHop-000486-Sz for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 19:17:03 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a3so4447903oib.8 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:16:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.227.161 with SMTP id sb1mr19408252obc.80.1421695014515; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:16:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.153.164 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:16:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0OTynX4oiQoyanpRKE2tpAuS4L5X-2j20328725J9RrvQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAN5esQJe0uUm0NyctaBa6WH7_JjeE_OLR=FY_XQWnSr50VRDyA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHLa0OTynX4oiQoyanpRKE2tpAuS4L5X-2j20328725J9RrvQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 19:16:54 +0000 Message-ID: <CAN5esQJK4UnkQC=y6aT15txFekpptv32+5n4CbyR=6G6J7HF4A@mail.gmail.com> From: Richard Brady <rnbrady@gmail.com> To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3581251c220050d062ab2 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 (rnbrady[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: 1YDHop-000486-Sz Cc: Bitcoin <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> 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: <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: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 19:17:04 -0000 --001a11c3581251c220050d062ab2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Fair points, although for me the line is blurred between which of those are security considerations vs performance considerations. Richard On 19 January 2015 at 19:09, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote: > Text formats such as XML or JSON are far less deterministic, are more > loosely specified, have wide variance in parsing, are not very hash-able, > the list goes on. > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Richard Brady <rnbrady@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Gavin, Mike and co >> >> Is there a strong driver behind the choice of Google Protocol Buffers for >> payment request encoding in BIP-0070? >> >> Performance doesn't feel that relevant when you think that: >> 1. Payment requests are not broadcast, this is a request / response flow, >> much more akin to a web request. >> 2. One would be cramming this data into a binary format just so you can >> then attach it to a no-so-binary format such as HTTP. >> >> Some great things about protocols/encodings such as HTTP/JSON/XML are: >> 1. They are human readable on-the-wire. No Wireshark plugin required, >> tcpdump or ngrep will do. >> 2. There are tons of great open source libraries and API for parsing / >> manipulating / generating. >> 3. It's really easy to hand-craft a test message for debugging. >> 4. The standards are much easier to read and write. They don't need to >> contain code like BIP-0070 currently does and they can contain examples, >> which BIP70 does not. >> 5. They are thoroughly specified by independent standards bodies such as >> the IETF. Gotta love a bit of MUST / SHOULD / MAY in a standard. >> 6. They're a family ;-) >> >> Keen to hear your thoughts on this and very keen to watch the payment >> protocol grow regardless of encoding choice! My background is SIP / VoIP >> and I think that could be a fascinating use case for this protocol which >> I'm hoping to do some work on. >> >> Best, >> Richard >> >> --001a11c3581251c220050d062ab2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Fair points, although for me th= e line is blurred between which of those are security considerations vs per= formance considerations.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div cla= ss=3D"gmail_extra">Richard</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class= =3D"gmail_quote">On 19 January 2015 at 19:09, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr"= ><<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay= .com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma= rgin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"lt= r">Text formats such as XML or JSON are far less deterministic, are more lo= osely specified, have wide variance in parsing, are not very hash-able, the= list goes on.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gm= ail_quote"><div><div>On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Richard Brady <span d= ir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:rnbrady@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">rnbra= dy@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmai= l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left= :1ex"><div><div><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Gavin, Mike and co<div><br></div><div>I= s there a strong driver behind the choice of Google Protocol Buffers for pa= yment request encoding in BIP-0070?</div><div><br></div><div>Performance do= esn't feel that relevant when you think that:</div><div>1. Payment requ= ests are not broadcast, this is a request / response flow, much more akin t= o a web request.</div><div>2. One would be cramming this data into a binary= format just so you can then attach it to a no-so-binary format such as HTT= P.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Some great things about protocols/encodin= gs such as HTTP/JSON/XML are:</div><div>1. They are human readable on-the-w= ire. No Wireshark plugin required, tcpdump or ngrep will do.</div><div>2. T= here are tons of great open source libraries and API for parsing / manipula= ting / generating.</div><div>3. It's really easy to hand-craft a test m= essage for debugging.<br></div><div>4. The standards are much easier to rea= d and write. They don't need to contain code like BIP-0070 currently do= es and they can contain examples, which BIP70 does not.=C2=A0</div><div>5. = They are thoroughly specified by independent standards bodies such as the I= ETF. Gotta love a bit of MUST / SHOULD / MAY in a standard.</div><div>6. Th= ey're a family ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>Keen to hear your thoughts = on this and very keen to watch the payment protocol grow regardless of enco= ding choice! My background is SIP / VoIP and I think that could be a fascin= ating use case for this protocol which I'm hoping to do some work on.</= div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Richard</div><div><br></div></div><= /div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div> --001a11c3581251c220050d062ab2--