Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WR1JA-00013z-GK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:24:32 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.177; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WR1J8-0002S6-98 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:24:32 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id wo20so2559724obc.36 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:24:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.174.170 with SMTP id bt10mr33800333oec.47.1395415464933; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.231 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:24:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:24:24 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: iqNk5Ft3XnrSEpKIPJTItl3-kDo Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Andreas Schildbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6c52c19fdfc04f51f7b51 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 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 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WR1J8-0002S6-98 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:24:32 -0000 --047d7bd6c52c19fdfc04f51f7b51 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable SPDY requires SSL and is even more complex than HTTP. Really, the current protocol we've got (length prefixed protobufs) is just fine except for the lack of encryption/authentication. For that you need to do ECDH to establish a shared AES session key, and MAC each packet. Like I said, it's not entirely trivial which is why it's worth trying SSL too, but it's also not a massive effort. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > On 03/21/2014 02:54 PM, Alex Kotenko wrote: > > > > I wonder how complex it would be to implement HTTP-over-Bluetooth= . > Not > > > like I'm willing to do that now, but HTTP is well known and prove= n > > to be > > > quite good for tasks like this, so in theory it would be handy to > have > > > such capacities in here. > > > > Thought of that as well. On the other hand, HTTP might be overkill > and > > we inherit its potential downsides as well. > > > > =E2=80=8BIt definitely is an overkill. Don't think we should do it now = unless we > > will see later during implementation that we really have to. > > Btw. we could also consider SPDY. I'm not sure about the advantages, but > its probably quicker and leaner. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book > "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and thei= r > applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, > this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --047d7bd6c52c19fdfc04f51f7b51 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
SPDY requires SSL and is even more complex than HTTP.
=
Really, the current protocol we've got (length prefixed = protobufs) is just fine except for the lack of encryption/authentication. F= or that you need to do ECDH to establish a shared AES session key, and MAC = each packet. Like I said, it's not entirely trivial which is why it'= ;s worth trying SSL too, but it's also not a massive effort.


On Fri,= Mar 21, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> wrote:
On 03/21/2014 02:54 PM, Alex Kotenko wrote:<= br>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > I wonder how complex it would be to implement HTTP-= over-Bluetooth. Not
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > like I'm willing to do that now, but HTTP is we= ll known and proven
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 to be
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > quite good for tasks like this, so in theory it wou= ld be handy to have
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > such capacities in here.
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Thought of that as well. On the other hand, HTTP might b= e overkill and
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 we inherit its potential downsides as well.
>
> =E2=80=8BIt definitely is an overkill. Don't think we should do it= now unless we
> will see later during implementation that we really have to.

Btw. we could also consider SPDY. I'm not sure about the advantages, bu= t
its probably quicker and leaner.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases = and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf= .net/sfu/13534_NeoTech
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--047d7bd6c52c19fdfc04f51f7b51--