Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.169; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f169.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2VLsh0mi=saQ0ZOnjVijUHoqEMxTG3LHcaCb2Ua-f-gQ@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>
	<CABsx9T023aw11cq6iiZhT3cgfNYJXr=qG40Fzc7rYZOimJ=62w@mail.gmail.com>
	<50C03BDA.6010600@petersson.at>
	<CANEZrP1iS4_MFi2=3Qa4_rSGXe5EK8B0wWy43hXJOeKp-SfpPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2UBQXzDPj0zHio+9i0uKNqiPYwL=kYgWKSirXRvckQ4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2VLsh0mi=saQ0ZOnjVijUHoqEMxTG3LHcaCb2Ua-f-gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:13:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T23Lpju6Pz87G1uuQ=gjdKhNh=rMCmmv9=vj2ikONwONQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0443049c92f98204d033e3ec
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Precedence: list

--f46d0443049c92f98204d033e3ec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

> Re: the newest spec. Rather than make the signature over the
> "concatenation of", why not just make it a signature over the
> serialized protobuf minus the signature field (as I did in my demo
> code). Otherwise it seems like we'd need more code than really
> necessary. We can state explicitly tags must be ordered if you want,
> even though all implementations should do that already.


OK. I want to keep the signature field required, though, so how about:

signature: digital signature over a protocol buffer serialized variation of
the SignedPaymentRequest message where signature is a zero-byte array and
fields are serialized in numerical order (all current protocol buffer
implementations serialize fields in numerical order), using the public key
in pki_data.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--f46d0443049c92f98204d033e3ec
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>&gt;</span=
> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Re: the newest spec. Rather than make the signature over the<br>
&quot;concatenation of&quot;, why not just make it a signature over the<br>
serialized protobuf minus the signature field (as I did in my demo<br>
code). Otherwise it seems like we&#39;d need more code than really<br>
necessary. We can state explicitly tags must be ordered if you want,<br>
even though all implementations should do that already.</blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>OK. I want to keep the signature field required, though, so ho=
w about:</div><div><br></div><div>signature: digital signature over a proto=
col buffer serialized variation of the SignedPaymentRequest message where s=
ignature is a zero-byte array and fields are serialized in numerical order =
(all current protocol buffer implementations serialize fields in numerical =
order), using the public key in pki_data.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br><br>

--f46d0443049c92f98204d033e3ec--