Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.180 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.180; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f180.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3-wpMV8A8x2kqkWSB2XAiBVVY0RnAAiDKd54Og9erZiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhk7F2OHT64i2LNSjv8DR5tD3RJkLJGzPGZW8OPQTCjQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BFFE30.8010105@bitcoinarmory.com>
	<CABsx9T3-wpMV8A8x2kqkWSB2XAiBVVY0RnAAiDKd54Og9erZiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:22:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBitdL0fRvxFBqT8kR4BGsqgV5rgTTiB3hLm+gJMv4Ca9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures
Precedence: list

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> DERSIG BIP looks great to me, just a few nit-picky changes suggested:
>
> You mention the "DER standard" : should link to
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/X.690-0207.pdf (or
> whatever is best reference for DER).
>
> "this would simplify avoiding OpenSSL in consensus implementations"  -->
> "this would make it easier for non-OpenSSL implementations"
>
> "causing opcode failure"  : I know what you mean by "opcode failure", but it
> might be good to be more explicit.
>
> "since v0.8.0, and nearly no transactions" -->  "and very few
> transactions..."
>
> "reducing this avenue for malleability is useful on itself as well"  :
> awkward English. How about just "This proposal has the added benefit of
> reducing transaction malleability (see BIP62)."

Nit addressed, hopefully.

-- 
Pieter