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
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
id 1X20AH-0003nC-4q for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Jul 2014 15:40:13 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org
designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
client-ip=80.91.229.3;
envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org;
helo=plane.gmane.org;
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1X20AF-0000DM-M0
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Jul 2014 15:40:13 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
id 1X20A4-0005eU-Pk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Jul 2014 17:40:00 +0200
Received: from f052195207.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.52.195.207])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 01 Jul 2014 17:40:00 +0200
Received: from andreas by f052195207.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1
(Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 01 Jul 2014 17:40:00 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 17:39:42 +0200
Message-ID: <louknu$7ja$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <leuunm$tjk$1@ger.gmane.org> <CANEZrP0J849oDvMWjf8LWi0xj44Q8DaUwDip5_smVBMNgeQ3mw@mail.gmail.com> <CALDj+BZJ0rSKuDHdbL7ANN0Vtaa3-KGYgusqMDzzB-CUxjMz7g@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP3szn=oQS+ZuqSzjUoSAjtkyPxPWJFaU1vDW43dRNVeNQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140320215208.GC88006@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <CANEZrP3kHRJ6U-O_Jgei4U6s9GyQGvB_p5ChtcHJEkYR0wWPvQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140326224826.GE62995@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <CANEZrP2HtJsOf5zOsPz32U=Jot7U9k80yEu=hj5uMPkRC+WGsQ@mail.gmail.com> <lgvnc2$eu4$1@ger.gmane.org> <CANEZrP1==hL1mW6SWV0qXUMVVx7U_HUXtorpb7qVK2R4mOfzbg@mail.gmail.com> <A1269E16-63BC-44D5-B460-D793D45587AD@riseup.net> <CALDj+BYkOyNuEiiuTgjd7L-ZeHN4Mb4034W+OeCFob1RwJn=Vg@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP1HvKAg6d7tTcnY3BJr0_5LuCN1FGYQvQ1+RpL1B6cwHw@mail.gmail.com> <lou05t$2
ra$1@ger.gmane.org> <D4B82FD9-8078-48B2-9F91-8A3AB23AEAA7@osfda.org> <CALDj+BZ8_YB0DHiaGZPq4MB-dvkRqJhBFazcfnrrPX4EvRxbeQ@mail.gmail.com> <louibr$8gc$1@ger.gmane.org>
<1016E2A3-C678-46FA-B80E-F9D86FDEA213@osfda.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f052195207.adsl.alicedsl.de
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
In-Reply-To: <1016E2A3-C678-46FA-B80E-F9D86FDEA213@osfda.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature,
domain signs all mail
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1X20AF-0000DM-M0
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments
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: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 15:40:13 -0000
Ok, one more idea:
r= is used for the first URL, and we *think* of it as r0=
additional URLs are appended as
r1=
r2=
and so on. This would also define an ordering in case we need it.
On 07/01/2014 05:07 PM, Michael Wozniak wrote:
> Multiple parameters is currently undefined as far as I can tell. Should the client take the first, last, or ignore it completely if there are multiple of any parameter? I think that’s the point of the parameter pollution discussion, which will define it one way or the other.
>
> I’m only familiar with the Electrum implementation, which is currently checking for any duplicate parameters and treating the entire URI as invalid if duplicate parameters exist (following the parameter pollution suggestions).
>
> -
> Michael Wozniak
>
> On Jul 1, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> wrote:
>
>> Does r[]= really need to be encoded as r%5B1%5D= ? In this case, I'd
>> advocate for a simple array parameter name, like rs= ("plural" of r).
>> Length really does matter for QR codes.
>>
>> I'm fine with either multiple r= params or exactly one r= plus zero to
>> many r[]= params. Although I think it is a violation of the (current)
>> spec to choke on more than one r= parameters, I admit that bitcoinj is
>> currently implemented that way. (We could however fix this in a
>> maintenance release.)
>>
>> However, r= should also allow all other protocols, exactly like any of
>> the r[]= params. I don't think we should do a distinction here. Also
>> because of backwards compatibility to the status quo.
>>
>>
>> On 07/01/2014 03:03 PM, Alex Kotenko wrote:
>>> In my mind it's not like the client's phone is going all directions at
>>> the same time. There should be a priority method and fallback method(s).
>>> And I see p2p radio as priority, and web as fallback, and BIP21 in the
>>> end as always-working-default.
>>>
>>> So I'm keeping support for it all while want to be able to provide best
>>> user experience.
>>> Mike, a while ago in this thread you've described contactless cards
>>> user experience. I'm also using contactless cards often, and what I'm
>>> aiming at is creating same level of user experience for Bitcoin users.
>>>
>>> Encryption over bluetooth is a matter to worry about, and we will
>>> introduce that, but we need to sort out more low level problems first
>>> before coming into that stage.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, the backwards compatibility is a good issue Michael pointed out.
>>> While processing of multiple "r" parameters is indeed uncertain (since
>>> there is no RFC for that various implementations may behave
>>> differently), the array solution is somewhat better. The array parameter
>>> name is "r%5B1%5D=", i.e. it's not "r=", and we can add plain "r="
>>> alongside. And if particular implementation understands the array
>>> construct - it will use it, otherwise it will ignore the "r%5B1%5D=" and
>>> use only usual "r=".
>>>
>>> This doens't work though for cases where particular implementation
>>> understands array construct but doesn't work well with repeating
>>> parameters, since it will see two repeating "r" - an array and a string.
>>> I don't have a solution for that atm.
>>>
>>>
>>> If add completely new parameter to solve this we will need to make it an
>>> array straight away to address upcoming issues with accommodating other
>>> protocols.
>>> And then I would also modify existing BIP72 to strictly define "r=" as
>>> "http(s)" only parameter, while all other protocols (bluetooth, WiFi
>>> Direct, ultrasound, chirp etc) should go to the new array parameter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
>>> Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
>>> Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
>>> Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
>> Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
>> Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
>> Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
> Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
> Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
> Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
