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
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1WekqV-0000iH-Tt
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:39:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.160.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.160.174; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yk0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WekqU-0005Xf-6M
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:39:43 +0000
Received: by mail-yk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 20so5616056yks.33
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.142.204 with SMTP id i52mr37425118yhj.6.1398688776607;
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.188.149 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:39:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2v=oX5eR9yoBULPVceZFD2_d+xMF7jQJACHYP=FgWK-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301b66adae60f404f8199b53
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
(gavinandresen[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: 1WekqU-0005Xf-6M
Cc: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to change payment protocol signing
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: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:39:44 -0000
--20cf301b66adae60f404f8199b53
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
There is a discussion about clarifying how BIP70 signs payment requests
here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/41
The issue is what to do with the signature field before signing. The code
Mike and I initially wrote does this:
request.set_signature(string(""));
(sets signature to the empty string)
I think that is a mistake; it should be:
request.clear_signature();
(clears signature field, so it is not serialized at all).
So: if you are implementing, or have implemented, the payment protocol,
please chime in. I'd like to change the spec and the reference
implementation NOW, while BIP70 is still a 'Draft'.
Because this type of "hey, I'm implementing your standard and it doesn't
work the way I think it should" mistake is exactly why BIPs take a while
before being declared 'Final.'
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--20cf301b66adae60f404f8199b53
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">There is a discussion about clarifying how BIP70 signs pay=
ment requests here:<div>=C2=A0=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/b=
ips/pull/41">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/41</a></div><div><br></di=
v><div>The issue is what to do with the signature field before signing. The=
code Mike and I initially wrote does this:</div>
<div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0request.set_signature(string("&=
quot;));</div><div><br></div><div>(sets signature to the empty string)</div=
><div><br></div><div>I think that is a mistake; it should be:</div><div><br=
></div><div>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0request.clear_signature();</div><div><br></div><div>(clears si=
gnature field, so it is not serialized at all).</div><div><br></div><div>So=
: if you are implementing, or have implemented, the payment protocol, pleas=
e chime in. I'd like to change the spec and the reference implementatio=
n NOW, while BIP70 is still a 'Draft'.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Because this type of "hey, I'm implementing yo=
ur standard and it doesn't work the way I think it should" mistake=
is exactly why BIPs take a while before being declared 'Final.'</d=
iv>
<div><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div></div>
--20cf301b66adae60f404f8199b53--
|
