Re: [dispatch] draft-dold-payto-03

Richard Barnes <> Thu, 14 February 2019 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6729C13104A for <>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:26:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ADQXhKTNXhP for <>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBFBA131048 for <>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i5so11426650oto.9 for <>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:26:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PKJdpe/wqlypfdrhkfxq5fri1Ew75gfVsiNhyiYcziQ=; b=blD1X/8U9TLTokBujxY5aU6/Nz7/JlnNsIIfqVHYGysqmgwBEiPZQsGIWt1tMeKUhr dInTwddtyd0RU25M1NG0E0RZMhy47GHkm8U3pyiZgwWgPlt+RrwaAK0oWRPw/wSep0be 3dQMyve83vXQsZYChIufFmcMLQxDzL3nuc1MtL5i7M3KrPKsauSujlTum5WSNelP4/PW KQTCVZMDjrrDfwkoGipvHUsW+w9VC5K/vgMsnSH9oqQszHsPr94HPHKJBBPKxYmmenEl opPd2o266cT89mOuA4hb2pk/uAFWAWy2kg24Lg11kByCJoIWCFZn+ueQTQRM08Yt/B9z KeeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PKJdpe/wqlypfdrhkfxq5fri1Ew75gfVsiNhyiYcziQ=; b=BNJmvMKvGmv/p5YFRDcbnF61hzIdImBVhXeGeYsX/9JI4hczWPkFTLq1WBRJczttQ+ t2oYxkX9R2/KJtoh6yEQmmVJ7vBxl+rn06lgQqy3l1oTLpZR072XWCidygLndAB5Rq4G 0PJHkNPRLmNnhxsqZ70Auv74AkF8tUaYfCy8g6BqabiShT660CkpxRdEbtAmkYlw4DAY eMPnoFpTlZj24S8/MeUXb9+OYyRCndbmUUvOytWDjhlhBKcxIeQZ+DpGk5FHQsCFw9nz hRw3HNCQV5ND17/uqb+E2NPc1EpXyuTy7T4GbehlnJo1mVgFrgYTxSI/NV6BqOSN8Id4 ho+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAub1/Nq/Dax81OSz8fTIqTI9Raxh58g2senCFUA2+bma2S9SmAaA j5CPfskF06DwCKBmDmNUtP1HOSSEiT50KbfKmYUf0w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ia0Jyfl8sUs3wggDPuiE1FuXBkEt4PcotIfmq+RqXfC2gkr+vhdJ46tr1JkgFGBgveylsE/uXVglqH+TBYoBVk=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3a22:: with SMTP id j31mr2842161otc.238.1550161581932; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:26:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Richard Barnes <>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:26:05 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>
Cc: Christian Grothoff <>, DISPATCH <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006fb0090581dd1eda"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-dold-payto-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:26:24 -0000

A couple of comments based on a quick review:

- It would be useful to know whether there are people interested in using
this specification, i.e., payers that would parse these URLs and use them
to initiate payments, and/or payees that would like to publish payment
coordinates in this way.

- What value is there in having a common "payto" URI scheme with a
payment-type switch underneath it, vs. just having independent URI schemes
for each payment system?  After all, this document just defiens a
container; it doesn't provide any functionality that works across payment

- It's unclear to me what the use case is for the query parts.  I can
understand using the authority and path to identify a payment target.  But
things like "amount" and "message" seem like things that would be added by
client software in between parsing a URL and initiating a payment.

- While it's nice that you've created a registry for different payment
types, they seem a little underspecified.  Even assuming it's clear if I
just track down all the references, it would be helpful to at least have an
example of each one.

- I don't think you actually want the whole `authority` production in the
authority portion.  If you're just going to put a payment type identifier
there, then you don't need things like a port number.

On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 9:14 AM Eric Rescorla <> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 5:31 AM Christian Grothoff <>
> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> Ekr suggested I should e-mail this list and ask for dispatch/processing
>> of the payto:// URI draft.
>> The draft was previously reviewed on uri-review (twice) and adopted
> Note, I believe you mean "adapted".
> -Ekr
> according to feedback received on uri-review as well as from an IANA
>> selected anonymous expert.
>> We would like to see it advance towards RFC status. However, Ekrsaid the
>> draft was insufficiently trivial for him to accept RFC 7211 AD
>> sponsorship, and also could not identify a better WG than DISPATCH for
>> it. So here we are.
>> As usual, constructive feedback is welcome and we'll also be at IETF 104
>> for hopefully conclusive discussions after 2 years in the pipeline...
>> Best regards,
>> Christian
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list