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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W7nzl-0004ax-4U for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:21:05 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1W7nzj-00012Z-UK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:21:05 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W7nzX-0006Ut-5w for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:20:51 +0100 Received: from f053014231.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.53.14.231]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:20:51 +0100 Received: from andreas by f053014231.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:20:51 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:20:39 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f053014231.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -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 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1W7nzj-00012Z-UK Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: PaymentACK semantics 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: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:21:05 -0000 On 01/27/2014 03:54 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > The purpose of PaymentACK is to give the customer reassurance that their > payment request has been received and will be processed (or not). > > If it is syntactically incorrect or invalid in a way that the payment > processor can detect right away then a PaymentACK with a message saying > that there is a problem should be the response. Thanks for the clarification. So I am *always* supposed to reply with an ack. I was assuming that if I actually send a nack, I would just close the connection without sending an ack. Maybe that should be mentioned in the spec explicitly. I must admit that I think the name of the message is misleading -- PaymentResponse would make this clearer.