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 ) id 1WekqV-0000iH-Tt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:39:43 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.160.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.174; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-yk0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WekqU-0005Xf-6M for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:39:43 +0000 Received: by mail-yk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 20so5616056yks.33 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.142.204 with SMTP id i52mr37425118yhj.6.1398688776607; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.188.149 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:39:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301b66adae60f404f8199b53 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 (gavinandresen[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: 1WekqU-0005Xf-6M Cc: Andreas Schildbach Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to change payment protocol signing 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, 28 Apr 2014 12:39:44 -0000 --20cf301b66adae60f404f8199b53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 There is a discussion about clarifying how BIP70 signs payment requests here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/41 The issue is what to do with the signature field before signing. The code Mike and I initially wrote does this: request.set_signature(string("")); (sets signature to the empty string) I think that is a mistake; it should be: request.clear_signature(); (clears signature field, so it is not serialized at all). So: if you are implementing, or have implemented, the payment protocol, please chime in. I'd like to change the spec and the reference implementation NOW, while BIP70 is still a 'Draft'. Because this type of "hey, I'm implementing your standard and it doesn't work the way I think it should" mistake is exactly why BIPs take a while before being declared 'Final.' -- -- Gavin Andresen --20cf301b66adae60f404f8199b53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There is a discussion about clarifying how BIP70 signs pay= ment requests here:

The issue is what to do with the signature field before signing. The= code Mike and I initially wrote does this:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0request.set_signature(string("&= quot;));

(sets signature to the empty string)

I think that is a mistake; it should be:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0request.clear_signature();

(clears si= gnature field, so it is not serialized at all).

So= : if you are implementing, or have implemented, the payment protocol, pleas= e chime in. I'd like to change the spec and the reference implementatio= n NOW, while BIP70 is still a 'Draft'.

Because this type of "hey, I'm implementing yo= ur standard and it doesn't work the way I think it should" mistake= is exactly why BIPs take a while before being declared 'Final.'


--
--
Gavin Andresen
--20cf301b66adae60f404f8199b53--