BIP 75: Out of Band Address Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption#357
Merged
luke-jr merged 71 commits intobitcoin:masterfrom Mar 17, 2016
Merged
BIP 75: Out of Band Address Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption#357luke-jr merged 71 commits intobitcoin:masterfrom
luke-jr merged 71 commits intobitcoin:masterfrom
Conversation
- Removed Requestor/Responder definitions - Seperated ECDH secret point generation and AES-256 (CBC Mode) setup from individual steps (listed twice) and created it's own section - Added InvoiceRequest Validation section
- Add Message Interaction Details + new mimetypes
- Make Abstract more readable - Update Sender definition and acronym descriptions - Added comments to ReturnPaymentRequest definition - Bold ECDH and AES Setup notes and added "(see below)" for reference
use same email for voisine as in other BIPs
- Update InvoiceRequest to include nonce - Remove ephemeral_public_key from ReturnPaymentRequest - Update message validation and nonce usage in processes
added some details, fix typo
- Update InvoiceRequest notification_url definition to use SHOULD instead of MAY - Capitalize MUST, SHOULD, etc. - Update InvoiceRequest Message Creation steps to specifically define behavior for empty amount or amount out of bounds - Add implementation section with references to Addressimo reference Store & Forward server and a client implementation in functest_ir.py - Add flow diagrams for BIP70 extension and moble-to-mobile example with store and forward service
Added example use case.
- Add 2 new use cases and add Wallet Name to the Address Book section of optional ways to add entries to an address book
- Change ReturnPaymentRequest message name to EncryptedPaymentRequest - Add Payment Request (with Store & Forward server) use-case documentation - Add initial public key retrieval ideas
…entACK messages with Store & Forward server
…blic key retrieval example
Made public keys required, updated steps
- Also, fix ** used for bold and replace with <b></b>
Renamed to BIP75, added extensions to BIP70 payment details
- Added bolding to replace_by_fee
…ce_by_fee is commented out as it's only available in version 2 of the message
Extended BIP70 fields, added BIP number
…t.proto - Add DER encoding requirement for EC public keys and ECC signatures - Add SHA-256 hashing requirement for ECC signatures - Add FIPS 180-4 SHS link
* Fixing a few extra closing `b` tags and converting others to wiki bold syntax. * Linking "see below" and "see above" items to the actual section of the BIP. * Consistent capitalization of "Bitcoin". * "requester" => "requester* (more common outside of legal writing) * "concious" => "conscious" * "Foward" => "Forward" * "Satoshis" => "satoshis" (as unit of bitcoin, not the name of creator) * Removing unnecessary </img> which can actually cause problems. * Adding required `alt` attribute to img tags. * Fix wrapping of long lines (some were wrapped at 112 chars) - No effect on final rendering users see.
Format comment to fit style of previous comments
Formatting improvements to BIP-75
Format Comment To Match Previous Style
Removed BIP70 extensions
| James MacWhyte <macwhyte@gmail.com> | ||
| Status: Draft | ||
| Type: Standards Track | ||
| Created: 2015-11-20 |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please don't add spaces to align the headers (leave the authors list as-is).
luke-jr
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
Fixed the header and committed to our branch. |
Contributor
Author
|
Hey @luke-jr, I'm not sure what's causing this git issue exactly. Per http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13480346/git-commits-left-behind-when-switching-back-to-a-branch-from-detached-head, this is a bug that was fixed in Git v1.7.11.5 and per Travis CI, their VM are using Git 1.8. Have you seen this before? |
Member
|
The git message isn't an issue, it's normal. The issue was that you had BIP 75 after BIP 8x in the README, and didn't use the comma-only formatting for the author list there. I fixed those for you and merged it. |
Contributor
|
Thanks @luke-jr! |
1 similar comment
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks @luke-jr! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull request for BIP75 as discussed on the mailing list