Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <jordanmack1981@gmail.com>) id 1RcO8R-0008J7-UM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:19:07 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.175; envelope-from=jordanmack1981@gmail.com; helo=mail-iy0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.210.175]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RcO8R-0004yj-AG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:19:07 +0000 Received: by iakh37 with SMTP id h37so4985675iak.34 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.183.233 with SMTP id ep9mr23207243igc.67.1324243142026; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.50] (c-67-188-239-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.188.239.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x18sm60373102ibi.2.2011.12.18.13.18.59 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:19:00 -0800 (PST) Sender: Jordan Mack <jordanmack1981@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4EEE58C2.1040908@parhelic.com> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:18:58 -0800 From: Jordan Mack <jordanmack@parhelic.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1323979147.27319.140661012141129@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4EEB7E98.8030006@dot-bit.org> <CAJna-HjXp4XEHnbmX0HKsMDmnxoWQQMmqujN+D9nLV0Zz_omcg@mail.gmail.com> <4EEBBD84.6020907@dot-bit.org> <CAJ1JLtuhwdBC8jJsmS3pTUixdLwh0haB-Gq_CdEmEWYN0-z+QA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGQP0AH+J5Jo524o+EL9zNdHgpfTorTsyB+Ut4x0W-d9x84JZQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGQP0AH+J5Jo524o+EL9zNdHgpfTorTsyB+Ut4x0W-d9x84JZQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 (jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com) 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: 1RcO8R-0004yj-AG Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases 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: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:19:08 -0000 I can't speak for Namecoin. As for the HTTPS requirement, I'm on the fence. Without it, the resolution is open to a man in the middle attack. Perhaps HTTPS should be required, and if HTTP is used, a large warning message is displayed. As for the answered message format, is JSON the assumed structure that would be used? On 12/18/2011 1:05 PM, Jorge Tim�n wrote: > If we chose the simple URI proposal namecoin can still be integrated > to map the IP of the server by those who want to. > Does it removes the necessity of the certificates? > If so, we should let people decide between HTTP, HTTPS, namecoin or > whatever they trust. > > Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered > message? I mean fields like "amount", "concept" and such. >