Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.171; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f171.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2riPBViBqAOWfY9uSQwoEm=gN108JU988XvouMbai1Ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121128233619.GA6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CABsx9T09FYf2RTaMpmujt3qwTFc2JgnREH_7Hyk2mnCgb3CvAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121129170713.GD6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CANEZrP233CytLs3PWBQ1TyuBTMv4sLGJkEMeGWYq5xRi+iLKew@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121129185330.GE6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CABsx9T35qD_xJEVw002eAhJ1kr6x5aMU7RpD+U84XEOZXmXcYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2riPBViBqAOWfY9uSQwoEm=gN108JU988XvouMbai1Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:34:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T023aw11cq6iiZhT3cgfNYJXr=qG40Fzc7rYZOimJ=62w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Precedence: list

I've had some push-back on the names of the proposed messages-- e.g.
"Invoice" in the accounting world means "I've already given you a
product or service, here is what you owe, payment terms, what forms of
payment are accepted, etc."

I think there might also be confusion about why we're defining our own
Invoice when there are at least three or four other existing standard
for electronic invoices.

So unless there is strong objection I'm going to change the names of
the messages:

Invoice -->  PaymentRequest
Payment : ok as-is
Receipt --> PaymentACK  (payment acknowledgement)

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> Does it make sense to have this spec not include the details of
> bootstrapping? It's not complicated ....

BIP 0001 says:  "If in doubt, split your BIP into several well-focussed ones."

I think it makes sense to keep the URI extension separate from the
binary message format.

> We should define a simple mechanism for extending the protocol now...
>
> message Invoice {
>   extensions 1000 to max;
> }

Ok.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen