Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XBkKC-00063x-W6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:46:45 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f46.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XBkKC-0008IQ-0U for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:46:44 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id m1so8560113oag.5 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:46:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.52.5 with SMTP id p5mr48807197oeo.55.1406551598498; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:46:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:46:38 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vkD448fQ2aurJpFy0IvDLzMqhmE Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Mark van Cuijk Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11332c8e630ca304ff405001 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: 1XBkKC-0008IQ-0U Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal 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 Jul 2014 12:46:45 -0000 --001a11332c8e630ca304ff405001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Mark van Cuijk wrote: > Good to see that it has been discussed, but I see the idea has been > postponed. > I'm not sure postponed is the right word. It wasn't in v1, but many useful things weren't. It's more like, a bunch of people have to do work to upgrade this and at the moment they're all busy with other things. > I do like the idea coined by Mike that a PP can issue non-SSL certificate= s > for the purpose of merchant identification, as long as a customer is free > to determine whether he trusts the PP for this purpose. > I don't think I proposed this exactly? It's the other way around - a merchant issues an extension cert to allow the PP to act on their behalf. > Regarding the choice of how to authenticate the PP, I=E2=80=99m a bit > undetermined. Disregarding backward compatibility, I think the extended > certificate system proposed by Mike is cleaner. However, I don=E2=80=99t = like the > concept of requiring two separate signatures for old and new clients. > Taking backward compatibility in mind, I tend to prefer my proposal. > I'm not sure I understand. Your proposal also has two signatures. Indeed it must because delegation of authority requires a signature, but old clients won't understand it. --001a11332c8e630ca304ff405001 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Mark van Cuijk <mark@coinqy.com> wrote:
Goo= d to see that it has been discussed, but I see the idea has been postponed.=

I'm not sure postponed is the ri= ght word. It wasn't in v1, but many useful things weren't. It's= more like, a bunch of people have to do work to upgrade this and at the mo= ment they're all busy with other things.
=C2=A0
I do like the idea coined by Mike that a PP can issue non-SSL= certificates for the purpose of merchant identification, as long as a cust= omer is free to determine whether he trusts the PP for this purpose.

I don't think I proposed t= his exactly? It's the other way around - a merchant issues an extension= cert to allow the PP to act on their behalf.
=C2=A0
Regarding the choice of= how to authenticate the PP, I=E2=80=99m a bit undetermined. Disregarding b= ackward compatibility, I think the extended certificate system proposed by = Mike is cleaner. However, I don=E2=80=99t like the concept of requiring two= separate signatures for old and new clients. Taking backward compatibility= in mind, I tend to prefer my proposal.

I'm not sure I understand.= Your proposal also has two signatures. Indeed it must because delegation o= f authority requires a signature, but old clients won't understand it.<= /div>
--001a11332c8e630ca304ff405001--