Verifiable PayID Protocol implemention

[wshbair]

Is the Verifiable PayID Protocol has been implemented in the current version of the PayID server?
I have a look on the code and found a function of verifiable but it not similar to what mentioned in this RFC.

[0xCLARITY]

@wshbair , what was different between the PayID server and the RFC?

[wshbair]

For example, this is the return of API of GET request (http://127.0.0.1:8080/wazen)
{ "addresses": [], "verifiedAddresses": [ { "signatures": [ { "name": "testing", "protected": "", "signature": "d2hhdCBhbSBJIGNvZGluZyB3aGF0IGlzIGxpZmUgcGxlYXNlIGhlbHA=" } ], "payload": "{\"payId\":\"wazen$127.0.0.1\",\"payIdAddress\":{\"paymentNetwork\":\"XRPL\",\"environment\":\"TESTNET\",\"addressDetailsType\":\"CryptoAddressDetails\",\"addressDetails\":{\"address\":\"TVQWr6BhgBLW2jbFyqqufgq8T9eN7KresB684ZSHKQ3oDth\"}}}" } ], "payId": "wazen$127.0.0.1" }

While in RFC of verifiable-payid-protocol.txt Section 7.2 the example says the return looks like:
{ "messageType" : "PaymentInformation", "message" : { "payId" : "bob$receiver.example.com", "addresses" : [ { "paymentNetwork" : "xrpl", "environment" : "testnet", "addressDetailsType" : "CryptoAddressDetails", "addressDetails" : { "address" : "XTVQWr6BhgBLW2jbFyqqufgq8T9eN7KresB684ZSHKQ3oDth" } } ], "memo" : "Additional optional Information", "identity" : "TBD", } "signature" : "TBD" }

Thanks in advance for clarification

[0xCLARITY]

The Verifiable PayID Protocol is a bit outdated in that we've moved away from SignatureWrapper.

The reference server supports the Self-Sovereign Verifiable PayID format. Note that this is really just a JWS, so the protected and signature keys are base64 encoded, and the payload is stringified. In the PayID RFC they are shown unencoded and unstringified to help understand what is inside those keys.

[0xCLARITY]

@aanchal4 , what do you think we should do to avoid confusion here?

[aanchal4]

Thanks @wshbair for pointing this out.

@hbergren Ideally I would like to update the Verifiable PayID Protocol soon. In the mean time, the best way to avoid this confusion is to add the following to the respective RFCs.

1. "Obsoletes Verifiable PayID Protocol" to Self-Sovereign Verifiable PayID
2. "Updated by Self-Sovereign Verifiable PayID" to Verifiable PayID Protocol

Probably this not the ideal way, but would help avoid confusion until I update the Verifiable PayID Protocol draft.

@sappenin What do you think?

[sappenin]

@aanchal4 that sounds fine to me. I created some tasks for this that we can track internally.

I'm going to close this issue as it seems to be resolved for purposes of the problem @wshbair was having (@wshbair if there's still a concern here, feel free to re-open).