From: Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn•me.uk>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>, andreas@schildbach•de
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Error handling in payment protocol (BIP-0070 and BIP-0072)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:45:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <535BE2BD.7010303@jrn.me.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3boaWYuY8S-Xz=bAxe+ne5iP7m8AnuciaAOmDx_3D4Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Gavin, Andreas,
I'd see standardisation (or at least suggested standards) for error
handling as positive for consistency of user experience. I do see what
you mean about over-specification, however.
Thanks for the feedback, I've taken the main points and created two pull
requests:
BIP-0070: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/54/
BIP-0072: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/55/
Please tell me if these need any further work.
Ross
On 26/04/14 14:23, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> The main area of concern is handling unexpected problems while sending
>> the Payment message, or receiving the corresponding PaymentACK message.
>> For example, in case of a transport layer failure or non-200 HTTP status
>> code while sending the Payment message, what should the wallet software
>> do next? Is it safe to re-send the Payment message? I'd propose that for
>> any transport failure or 500 status code, the client retries after a
>> delay (suggested at 30-60 seconds). For 400 status codes, the request
>> should not be repeated, and as such the user should be alerted and a
>> copy of the Payment message saved to be resent later.
>>
> Why does error handling have to be standardized?
>
> I generally think that wallet software should be free to do whatever gives
> the user the best experience, so I'm in favor of restricting BIPs to things
> that must be standardized so that different implementations inter-operate.
>
>
>> For 300 (redirect and similar) status codes, is it considered safe to
>> follow redirects? I think we have to, but good to make it clear in the
>> specification.
>>
> Referencing whatever RFCs defines how to fetch URLs would be the best way
> to do this. Submit a pull request.
>
>
>> On the merchant's side; I think it would be useful for there to be
>> guidance for handling of errors processing Payment messages. I'd suggest
>> that Payment messages should have a fixed maximum size to avoid merchant
>> systems theoretically having to accept files of any size; 10MB would
>> seem far larger than in any way practical, and therefore a good maximum
>> size?
>
> PaymentRequests are limited to 50,000 bytes. I can't think of a reason why
> Payment messages would need to be any bigger than that. Submit a pull
> request to the existing BIP.
>
>
>> A defined maximum time to wait (to avoid DDoS via connection
>> holding) might be useful too, although I'd need to do measurements to
>> find what values are tolerable.
>>
> Implementation detail that doesn't belong in the spec, in my humble opinion.
>
>
>> I would like to have the protocol state that merchant systems should
>> handle repeatedly receiving the same Payment message, and return an
>> equivalent (if not identical) PaymentACK to each. This is important in
>> case of a network failure while the client is sending the Payment
>> message, as outlined above.
>>
> I think this should be left to implementations to work out.
>
>
>> Lastly, I'm wondering about potential timing issues with transactions;
>> if a merchant system wants to see confirmation of a transaction before
>> sending a PaymentACK...
>
> .... not a good idea. The user should get feedback right away. Poking a
> "pay now" button and then waiting more than a second or three to get "your
> payment has been received and is being processed" is terrible UI.
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-26 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-25 19:54 J Ross Nicoll
2014-04-25 22:33 ` Andreas Schildbach
2014-04-26 13:23 ` Gavin Andresen
2014-04-26 16:45 ` Ross Nicoll [this message]
2014-04-26 17:36 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-26 17:43 ` Ross Nicoll
2014-04-27 7:53 ` Kevin Greene
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=535BE2BD.7010303@jrn.me.uk \
--to=jrn@jrn$(echo .)me.uk \
--cc=andreas@schildbach$(echo .)de \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=gavinandresen@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox