1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <nicolas.dorier@gmail.com>) id 1YGS05-0003KY-U2
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:45:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.172; envelope-from=nicolas.dorier@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f172.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YGS05-0001ek-1h
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:45:41 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id h11so11598527wiw.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 28 Jan 2015 04:45:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.96.4 with SMTP id do4mr6755389wib.46.1422449129918; Wed,
28 Jan 2015 04:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Sender: slashene@gmail.com
X-Google-Sender-Delegation: slashene@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.92.112 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 04:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:45:29 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: SLhLWcRUu8zp1ZMtfaQLbUu5E2A
Message-ID: <CALYO6Xt-jTYwpywUaH-s4YPYyGUp1_BLSEswscnwX+Vu166Lcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nicolas DORIER <nicolas.dorier@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428f0019972c050db5bfb0
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(nicolas.dorier[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1YGS05-0001ek-1h
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: why Google Protocol Buffers for
encoding?
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: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:45:42 -0000
--f46d04428f0019972c050db5bfb0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I agree that the use protocol buffer and x509 by BIP70 is a poor choice.
The choice should have been done to maximize portability, not to maximize
efficiency and flexibility.
What I ended up doing for having a similar codebase on all plateform is to
parse a BIP70 messages with the help of a web service that convert it to
JSON.
I don't like this solution since it had a trust dependency, and the
certificate verification become handled by the web service, not the device.
But even if I solved google buffer problem, I would stumble upon having
headache to validate the x509 certificate chain on every plateforms.
A simple BIP70 using JSON + HTTPS would have make things more easy.
I agree that it requires that the merchant own the domain name of the BIP70
endpoint, but I don't consider such a big of a deal, since this is how
e-commerce works.
--f46d04428f0019972c050db5bfb0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>I agree that the use protocol buffer and x509 by=
BIP70 is a poor choice.<br><br></div>The choice should have been done to m=
aximize portability, not to maximize efficiency and flexibility.<br><br></d=
iv><div>What I ended up doing for having a similar codebase on all platefor=
m is to parse a BIP70 messages with the help of a web service that convert =
it to JSON.<br></div><div>I don't like this solution since it had a tru=
st dependency, and the certificate verification become handled by the web s=
ervice, not the device. But even if I solved google buffer problem, I would=
stumble upon having headache to validate the x509 certificate chain on eve=
ry plateforms.<br></div><div><br></div><div>A simple BIP70 using JSON + HTT=
PS would have make things more easy.<br></div><div>I agree that it requires=
that the merchant own the domain name of the BIP70 endpoint, but I don'=
;t consider such a big of a deal, since this is how e-commerce works.<br></=
div></div>
--f46d04428f0019972c050db5bfb0--
|
