BIP75 Simplification and Enhancements #385
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
- Add Updated Messages section to describe the status_code and status_message - Separated Message and Communication Errors into Payment Protocol Errors and Communication Errors - Add first draft Payment Protocol error codes - Update InvoiceRequest Message Creation description amount example to return Payment Protocol error in the case of an issue with the amount.
- Remove status_code and status_message from individual Payment Protocol messages - Remove EncryptedInvoiceRequest, EncryptedPaymentRequest, EncryptedPayment and EncryptedPaymentACK messages from protobuf definition file - Add ProtocolMessageType enum and ProtocolMessageType and EncryptedProtocolMesssage messages to bip-0075/paymentrequest.proto definition file - Update BIP75 text to remove old individual message encryption paths and include new encapsulating messages for self-contained PaymentProtocol communication (including errors) over various transport layers - Add initial list of status codes - Update BIP75 to use AES-256-GCM and remove message hash as GCM mode provides authenticated encryption - Update ECDH calculation to use SHA256 hash of ECDH's X point instead of the raw X point itself
- Update images
- Add requirement of additional authenticated data in the case that either status_code and/or status_message are in use
Updated S&F suggestions, some other tweaks and typos.
|
Can you merge this with the master branch please? |
# Conflicts: # bip-0075.mediawiki
|
Master merged 👍 |
|
Hey @luke-jr, can you please wait to merge this PR (if you were going to merge it soon?). I need to work on one more thing that I'm realizing needs a little bit of a revamp. Thanks! |
techguy613
changed the title
|
Next time just close and reopen the PR ;) |
added 2 commits
May 11, 2016 11:19
- Specify HMAC_DRBG security strength
techguy613
changed the title
|
Next time I will definitely close and re-open, but for now we're ready to go! 👍 Thanks @luke-jr |
|
Hey @luke-jr! There hasn't been much talk about this PR on the list outside of the announcement. What is the current status of (or issues holding up) merging the PR? Thanks sir! |
|
Missed your previous comment. ;) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This update for BIP75 makes the following changes:
These changes aim to make the protocol much easier to implement on both the client and store & forward server sides.