1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
|
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 <rnbrady@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CAN5esQJe0uUm0NyctaBa6WH7_JjeE_OLR=FY_XQWnSr50VRDyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Brady <rnbrady@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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
<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Gavin, Mike and co<div><br></div><div>Is there a strong=
driver behind the choice of Google Protocol Buffers for payment request en=
coding in BIP-0070?</div><div><br></div><div>Performance doesn't feel t=
hat relevant when you think that:</div><div>1. Payment requests are not bro=
adcast, this is a request / response flow, much more akin to a web request.=
</div><div>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</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>Some great things about protocols/encodings such as HTTP/=
JSON/XML are:</div><div>1. They are human readable on-the-wire. No Wireshar=
k plugin required, tcpdump or ngrep will do.</div><div>2. There are tons of=
great open source libraries and API for parsing / manipulating / generatin=
g.</div><div>3. It's really easy to hand-craft a test message for debug=
ging.<br></div><div>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</div><div>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.</div><div>6. They're a fami=
ly ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Best,</div><div>Richard</div><div><br></div></div>
--047d7b5d90b5b7d65d050d060814--
|
