Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk
	designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk;
	helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; 
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:47:57 +0100
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130807214757.GA45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72
Precedence: list

Very brief comment on BIP 72:

I wonder if there should be some discussion included in the
specification as to how the BIP 21 amount, message and label
parameters should be processed when the payment protocol is used.

Presumably amount should be completely ignored?  But is the total
amount requestd by the PaymentRequest required to match the amount
parameter (when present)?  Is the client permitted to complain if they
don't?

And what about message?  Presumably the memo from PaymentDetails
should take precedence, but if it's not present, and message is?

I think this is an area perhaps more suited to SHOULDs and MAYs rather
than MUSTs, but it is probably worthy of mention...

roy