Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7766BC00 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:06:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7B991B4 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id g53so1616390wra.2 for ; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 12:06:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vFqymty2eaYUghtTFFrNu6IdUNeCeGhIEa5Nq+Dikoc=; b=on9EIQkcwD8Ek90x+KpsVUHFPcwPKog8KC0gtGiEZldW8RcNaWsnVCVaYtUkz7geOk fy3X2PI1r7D+HkTXW/Jc/dU0xValeUoQE6MD/EQqmVkGCbz9BIvwm4rrveJdmWN6Cu3n r3t4Qt5ZZ0OONZKmse25M+KYmsmQQrJxhvBBT5b6jqqKSeIYVGNP5Z0KuTXSa2LZ/R5y t/H/7sw6rRBhmS4/n6jiQr/ecSQ21uj4ufQksQ9LZAJ9mGXOHTBt6xKkv6sw2Oij8MxX RccXwbFFXNyRaSZYui8Kc8uQ2nZaWLUeZVgu+WAYLxErD6YfLcFOX3YMVyMs80eQYVcH RGzA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vFqymty2eaYUghtTFFrNu6IdUNeCeGhIEa5Nq+Dikoc=; b=FDbq81gCpl7pxdOBOmr5TvOvMlCRxP4bWzKd9nRD5ISAyNyO3S18NTc06LDf1yoic0 rsFKh4VrDtF9iczdZhJNCYtRjHHeGS8irUv9n+y8aBvbCl81XFZam2KEmTGjQceUFT2d WiRC3wa0rsfbsXyqKc17dbdwt0xKtfyh0cLw6heop/6xRAZ4zkOyge7xbjfxgt3e34Rr KmfB9pJvvF73dZ+kJayiKN1784EqvgOCSl/yPfblCi9I/kPh9fjGmVwTNa9QpwKmH13w U96j7D8oUF7374ZUCCeklTT7+fEgQln82AWgNB9XV2PohrHMf6pF1A6rGEmRpI5Dsr8k J84w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5+Q4ESL/0ZRTqXTVPnjaXPfWyMCu6rE9jxLHjjzuF7K1MPWNgK dP2Wo0GTut8rX1qOt61Pn67UHvjj9I6RfcYXvJE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYvHxzANRLUPc3NmAaEYMJpjuJo7v12BRb+Io6+7fCLdEaWzozHO4h437Z/HnYdIUoIHsFVW4LobQPp6L3xaD0= X-Received: by 10.223.134.134 with SMTP id 6mr17295272wrx.72.1512504392405; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 12:06:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.146.69 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:06:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.146.69 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:06:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201712051939.33238.luke@dashjr.org> From: CryptAxe Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:06:31 -0800 Message-ID: To: Sjors Provoost Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11459da007f220055f9d5fa6" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 20:07:48 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Matt Corallo Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-21 amendment proposal: -no125 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 20:06:34 -0000 --001a11459da007f220055f9d5fa6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Dec 5, 2017 12:00 PM, "Sjors Provoost" wrote: ... I don't think all BIPs lend themselves to this pattern. Can you think of another example? Not right now, just seemed like a good idea to consider making it useful for more than one thing (maybe CT or something else could use it in the future?). I also suspect each ignored flag requires carefully defined behavior, so it's probably better to spell that out in the BIP. Sjors Agreed, no reason they couldn't reuse the same section of the payment request URI though. (And define that behavior in the BIP) --001a11459da007f220055f9d5fa6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Dec 5, 2017 12:00 PM, "Sjors Provoost" <sjors@sprovoost.nl> wrote:
...

I don't think all BIPs lend themselves to this pattern. Can you t= hink of another example?
Not right now, just seemed like a good idea to co= nsider making it useful for more than one thing (maybe CT or something else= could use it in the future?).=C2=A0

I also suspect each ignored flag requires carefully defin= ed behavior, so it's probably better to spell that out in the BIP.

Sjors

=
Agreed, no reason they couldn't reuse the sa= me section of the payment request URI though. (And define that behavior in = the BIP)=C2=A0

--001a11459da007f220055f9d5fa6--