<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2012-11-28&#xA;📝 Original message:RE: Changing SignedInvoice&#39;s invoice field to &#39;bytes serialized_invoice&#39;:&#xA;&#xA;Good Idea, I agree it will avoid potential issues. I think it then&#xA;makes sense to pull the pki_type and pki_data into SignedInvoice, too,&#xA;and specify that the signature is on the SHA256-HMAC of pki_type,&#xA;pki_data, and serialized_invoice (being careful to combine them in a&#xA;way that is secure).&#xA;&#xA;RE: Changing Payment to include just merchant_data and not the entire Invoice:&#xA;&#xA;Agreed, good idea.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;RE: Mr. Stanish&#39;s suggestion to punt all of this and wait for a Grand&#xA;Unified Solution:&#xA;&#xA;No, we have problems that need a solution right now. And, having&#xA;written one (I was the lead author of the ISO/IEC 14772-1&#xA;international standard) I&#39;m very pessimistic about your chances for&#xA;anything like IFEX to actually be adopted.&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;--&#xA;Gavin Andresen</html></oembed>