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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <roy@gnomon.org.uk>) id 1V7BaY-0007CU-J4
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:48:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk
designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender)
client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk;
helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk;
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1V7BaX-0007i7-2v
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:48:14 +0000
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk (localhost.gnomon.org.uk [127.0.0.1])
by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r77Llv6t045309
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:48:02 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from roy@darla.gnomon.org.uk)
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at darla.gnomon.org.uk
Received: (from roy@localhost)
by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.1/Submit) id r77LlvM5045308;
Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:47:57 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:47:57 +0100
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130807214757.GA45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1V7BaX-0007i7-2v
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72
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, 07 Aug 2013 21:48:14 -0000
Very brief comment on BIP 72:
I wonder if there should be some discussion included in the
specification as to how the BIP 21 amount, message and label
parameters should be processed when the payment protocol is used.
Presumably amount should be completely ignored? But is the total
amount requestd by the PaymentRequest required to match the amount
parameter (when present)? Is the client permitted to complain if they
don't?
And what about message? Presumably the memo from PaymentDetails
should take precedence, but if it's not present, and message is?
I think this is an area perhaps more suited to SHOULDs and MAYs rather
than MUSTs, but it is probably worthy of mention...
roy
|
