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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1RtjCi-0002Dy-GF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:15:12 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender)
client-ip=173.246.101.161;
envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me;
Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me)
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RtjCh-0003Xt-H3 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:15:12 +0000
Received: from [152.23.98.43] (dhcp04615.highsouth-resnet.unc.edu
[152.23.98.43])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F0CB3F8
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 4 Feb 2012 18:06:09 +0100 (CET)
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <CAKm8k+0V+LEBESkp18uhQR6CniLogobpxY_34YBqDM0VYcmzzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1328020046.70720.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<1328025899.2832.5.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
<1328034145.2832.11.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
<20120204140325.16110@gmx.net>
<CAKm8k+0V+LEBESkp18uhQR6CniLogobpxY_34YBqDM0VYcmzzw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:15:02 -0500
Message-ID: <1328375702.27827.3.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)
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
0.4 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM DNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RtjCh-0003Xt-H3
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 20 Rejected, process for BIP 21N
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: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:15:12 -0000
I changed the description of the message parameter to be a bit more
descriptive, however, I dont want to change the name of the parameter
because some clients have already implemented that and I really prefer
to make as minor of changes as possible to this BIP even if it is
officially only a Draft.
Matt
On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 16:03 +0000, Gary Rowe wrote:
> Seems reasonable to me.
>
> On 4 Feb 2012 14:03, <thomasV1@gmx.de> wrote:
> Just another question concerning BIP21:
>
> On the wiki, the description of the "message" parameter reads:
> "message that shown to the user after scanning the QR code"
>
> I believe that the purpose of this parameter is to contain a
> description of the transaction. This has use cases that go
> beyond QR codes.
>
> If I am right, then I would say that naming it "message" is
> misleading. In fact, "message" suggests that a message will be
> sent to someone (the recipient of the funds? a third party?),
> which is not the case here. That parameter should probably be
> called "description".
|
