summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/c6/dfd4f4782ba12c67e3a4507e2f6ba4947ea561
blob: 1847e9fa9fd14651d25e9735ce2e86f7416719c1 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Td90K-00046W-JF
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:26:24 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f47.google.com; 
Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.219.47])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Td90I-0002lL-C5
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:26:24 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id h1so12555654oag.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:26:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.4.161 with SMTP id l1mr10648100oel.141.1353975977020; Mon,
	26 Nov 2012 16:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.128.139 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:26:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTacBqX7_YpGzUxtqt9okeCeeufsG8d0CYnwVXPF_bu7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201211262319.37533.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgS3f1RKzPnni4LXgXfSUrxSrB3+vhdmbsVz2Rs5pScL=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<201211262344.03385.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgTacBqX7_YpGzUxtqt9okeCeeufsG8d0CYnwVXPF_bu7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:26:16 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: vPqHszl_xON8bhnkSbx1cmHm1AI
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0fhM=N=LsYa=za8MobiJYG9Fbpv+WniL8td6pRpr6jgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
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
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	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
	0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Td90I-0002lL-C5
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
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: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:26:24 -0000

> Perhaps we should agree to talk about everything _except_ that first?

Yeah, alternatives to X.509 chains don't interest me right now except
in the sense that they should be cleanly implementable with future
extensions.

So if you care about DANE or DNSSEC or custom PKI infrastructures or
whatever, rather than proposing them as replacements here (DOA), just
figure out how you would extend the protocol in Gavins mail in a
future extension. If you can't see a clean way to do it then let's
discuss that. If you can think of a way to do it then let's table it.
Better replacements can come in later BIPs.