From rusty at rustcorp.com.au  Wed Nov 21 22:52:28 2018
From: rusty at rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 09:22:28 +1030
Subject: [Lightning-dev] Base AMP
In-Reply-To: <CAD3i26BwK7jkQ5vRYJgh3X=Onhgc27ZaQpTF4_kXC89of+2_Jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <RIltvk7eDURKE0wl7VdQs7Y1Rx_DoccGaxe1q5NgwWouzqzbwkX2jXx3rVDSgtSL33ZF2VFmO_bntGSrHUOtFSl7ta3-PTDAHgHQeyeSVEw=@protonmail.com>
	<87a7maf7jh.fsf@gmail.com>
	<2GH68_8IDCnzwQUhLoqLVrLZSXXP5jZYM5GLwEsV0CMVL_qvZQpliKI1ng0dmCPA-dlWnFRUuWJV7OQMsoFd-kwDzCGmk27H4dqYV1RPJhc=@protonmail.com>
	<20181116154527.25adgchhfsz7aa43@erisian.com.au>
	<CAJ5H3Z5auMCeGaBFj-abuk4n8wk+fX9KQ0k6Q+NyLBadLRy+KA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87va4rp91k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<ABwAufGnHun1G9pmuhqZvty1JaNgzrXdd_G096y3ojBtsMFbCRtUvgtPspZjNAzB6gLiJQRQAInXIrSan_RZUrTX9NK3VyXkxdkBvrwzG9M=@protonmail.com>
	<CAD3i26BwK7jkQ5vRYJgh3X=Onhgc27ZaQpTF4_kXC89of+2_Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87k1l6nivn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

Johan Tor?s Halseth <johanth at gmail.com> writes:
> Seems like we can restrict the changes to BOLT11 by having the receiver
> assume NAMP for incoming payments < invoice_amount. (with some timeout of
> course, but that would need to be the case even when the sender is
> signalling NAMP).

This would effectively become a probe for Base AMP; if you get a partial
payment error, it's because the recipient didn't support Base AMP.

Seems cleaner to have a flag, both on BOLT11 and inside the onion.  Then
it's explicitly opt-in for both sides and doesn't affect existing nodes
in any way.

Cheers,
Rusty.