Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YDHfl-0004MH-96 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 19:07:37 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.218.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.51; envelope-from=rnbrady@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com ([209.85.218.51]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YDHfk-0003UY-73 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 19:07:37 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x69so7679012oia.10 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:07:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.33.102 with SMTP id q6mr11164230obi.79.1421694450781; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:07:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.153.164 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:07:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 19:07:30 +0000 Message-ID: From: Richard Brady To: Bitcoin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d90b5b7d65d050d060814 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 (rnbrady[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: 1YDHfk-0003UY-73 Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: why Google Protocol Buffers for encoding? 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: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 19:07:37 -0000 --047d7b5d90b5b7d65d050d060814 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Gavin, Mike and co Is there a strong driver behind the choice of Google Protocol Buffers for payment request encoding in BIP-0070? Performance doesn't feel that relevant when you think that: 1. Payment requests are not broadcast, this is a request / response flow, much more akin to a web request. 2. One would be cramming this data into a binary format just so you can then attach it to a no-so-binary format such as HTTP. Some great things about protocols/encodings such as HTTP/JSON/XML are: 1. They are human readable on-the-wire. No Wireshark plugin required, tcpdump or ngrep will do. 2. There are tons of great open source libraries and API for parsing / manipulating / generating. 3. It's really easy to hand-craft a test message for debugging. 4. The standards are much easier to read and write. They don't need to contain code like BIP-0070 currently does and they can contain examples, which BIP70 does not. 5. They are thoroughly specified by independent standards bodies such as the IETF. Gotta love a bit of MUST / SHOULD / MAY in a standard. 6. They're a family ;-) Keen to hear your thoughts on this and very keen to watch the payment protocol grow regardless of encoding choice! My background is SIP / VoIP and I think that could be a fascinating use case for this protocol which I'm hoping to do some work on. Best, Richard --047d7b5d90b5b7d65d050d060814 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Gavin, Mike and co

Is there a strong= driver behind the choice of Google Protocol Buffers for payment request en= coding in BIP-0070?

Performance doesn't feel t= hat relevant when you think that:
1. Payment requests are not bro= adcast, this is a request / response flow, much more akin to a web request.=
2. One would be cramming this data into a binary format just so = you can then attach it to a no-so-binary format such as HTTP.=C2=A0

Some great things about protocols/encodings such as HTTP/= JSON/XML are:
1. They are human readable on-the-wire. No Wireshar= k plugin required, tcpdump or ngrep will do.
2. There are tons of= great open source libraries and API for parsing / manipulating / generatin= g.
3. It's really easy to hand-craft a test message for debug= ging.
4. The standards are much easier to read and write. The= y don't need to contain code like BIP-0070 currently does and they can = contain examples, which BIP70 does not.=C2=A0
5. They are thoroug= hly specified by independent standards bodies such as the IETF. Gotta love = a bit of MUST / SHOULD / MAY in a standard.
6. They're a fami= ly ;-)

Keen to hear your thoughts on this and very= keen to watch the payment protocol grow regardless of encoding choice! My = background is SIP / VoIP and I think that could be a fascinating use case f= or this protocol which I'm hoping to do some work on.

Best,
Richard

--047d7b5d90b5b7d65d050d060814--