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
|
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 <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
id 1RsCIy-000629-Pw for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:55:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org
designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
client-ip=80.91.229.3;
envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org;
helo=plane.gmane.org;
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RsCIw-0004DD-Gu
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:55:20 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
id 1RsCIo-00077q-Uw for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:55:10 +0100
Received: from e179074086.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.179.74.86])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:55:10 +0100
Received: from andreas by e179074086.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1
(Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:55:10 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:55:01 +0100
Message-ID: <jg8kql$bct$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <1327881329.49770.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<jg88ed$i85$1@dough.gmane.org>
<CA+s+GJDLoUG43hdLKYMwehBO9qqE=YCm7eJ2RN-TTTY_+OLp=A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKm8k+2wrsNDxEQXjZmqWQtO5DHiTjc0SgU_+QCU_FybeFFY6g@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJAvEPda7UGHDoz84OavSh5jdN8wOhGgrNUgPU_Wh66Xyw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: e179074086.adsl.alicedsl.de
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJAvEPda7UGHDoz84OavSh5jdN8wOhGgrNUgPU_Wh66Xyw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/)
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
1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature,
domain signs all mail
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1RsCIw-0004DD-Gu
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 21 (modification BIP 20)
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, 31 Jan 2012 11:55:20 -0000
On 01/31/2012 11:22 AM, Wladimir wrote:
> To ensure forward compatibility with optional fields, we need to define
> how a client handles fields that it doesn't know about.
>
> When should it display an error message, and when should it silently
> accept and ignore the extraneous fields?
IMHO its standard that unknown URL parameters are simply ignored. I
think we should not change this principle.
> (For example, if something that restricts the validity, such
> as "expires" is added later on, it is pretty important not to ignore it.
> Older clients should refuse to comply.)
In this case, you'd need to refuse *all* parameters you don't know
about. In consequence, all extensions would break older clients.
|
