From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WK92Q-0004xn-8I for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 16:14:50 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.178; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com ([209.85.214.178]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WK92P-0007uR-6O for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 16:14:50 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id wp18so2641450obc.37 for ; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 08:14:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.55.65 with SMTP id q1mr41503obp.70.1393776883843; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 08:14:43 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.231 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 08:14:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:14:43 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: sUL-k__fn6iUOENRYI7d6OzToT4 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Andreas Schildbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015388480ecd6804f3a1f824 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WK92P-0007uR-6O Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70 extension to allow for identity delegation 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: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 16:14:50 -0000 --089e015388480ecd6804f3a1f824 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > I somehow think that it is too early for this heavy kind of extension, > given that the first version of BIP70 isn't even deployed widely let > alone *used*. > Definitely agree - like I said, I publish this only because I keep getting asked about it. > By reading your proposal I get the idea that the current spec doesn't > allow two (or three) different PKIs at once That's right. There's little point in having multiple PKI's simultaneously, that's why it doesn't allow it. This one is a special case because it doesn't replace but rather specialises and extends the existing PKI. Old clients that don't understand it would still show something useful and by upgrading you get better output. Actually you get closer to the output you're supposed to get. That's going to be rare though, I think. Generally you wouldn't want to have multiple PKIs in use simultaneously for the same payment request. > I would prefer if your fix would stay local to X.509 (and thus only > change X.509 specific structs rather than the top-level PaymentRequest). > It can be done but only by sacrificing backwards compatibility, which doesn't seem worth it to me. It's hardly a big deal to have two signature fields. The rest is all localised to the X509 parts. --089e015388480ecd6804f3a1f824 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= un, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de<= /a>> wrote:
I somehow think that it is too early for thi= s heavy kind of extension,
given that the first version of BIP70 isn't even deployed widely let alone *used*.

Definitely agree - like I= said, I publish this only because I keep getting asked about it.
=C2=A0
By reading your proposal I get the idea that the current spec doesn't allow two (or three) different PKIs at once

That's right. There's little point in having multiple PKI's si= multaneously, that's why it doesn't allow it.

This one is a special case because it doesn't replace but rather s= pecialises and extends the existing PKI. Old clients that don't underst= and it would still show something useful and by upgrading you get better ou= tput. Actually you get closer to the output you're supposed to get.

That's going to be rare though, I think. Generally = you wouldn't want to have multiple PKIs in use simultaneously for the s= ame payment request.
=C2=A0
I would prefer if your fix would stay local to X.509 (and thus only
change X.509 specific structs rather than the top-level PaymentRequest).

It can be done but only by sacrificing ba= ckwards compatibility, which doesn't seem worth it to me. It's hard= ly a big deal to have two signature fields. The rest is all localised to th= e X509 parts.

--089e015388480ecd6804f3a1f824--