bip-0021 and bip-0072 ambiguities & mistakes

bip-0021 and bip-0072 ambiguities & mistakes
2014-03-06 22:59 ` Mike Hearn
  
From: William Swanson @ 2014-03-06 22:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

Hello,
I am attempting to write a parser for bip-0021 URI's, including
support for the new bip-0072 payment parameters. My goal is absolute
correctness. Unfortunately, these BIP's have a few ambiguities and
mistakes which ought to be corrected.

First, I would like to point out that internet RFC 3986 governs the
general syntax for URI's. It obsoletes RFC 1738 and various other
early RFC's. Since RFC 3986 came out in 2005, I think we can agree
that any bitcoin URI scheme should use this and not the earlier ones.

Unfortunately, bip-0021 never actually mentions RFC 3986, which is a
big omission. Even worse, bip-0072 explicitly refers to RFC 1738,
which is obsolete. This is a problem, since the old, obsolete standard
requires more escapes than are actually necessary. Updating bip-0072
to refer to RFC 3986 instead would allow shorter, more readable
bitcoin URI's (things like slashes in payment addresses wouldn't need
to be escaped).

Secondly, neither of the bip's describe what to do with international
characters. I doubt anybody wants to limit the "label" and "message"
parameters to 7-bit ASCII, so a character encoding needs to be
defined. RFC reccomends that all new URI schemes use UTF-8 as their
encoding, which is perfectly reasonable. The bip-0021 standard just
needs to actually say so.

Finally, there is an error in the bip-0021 BNF grammar, which never
mentions the '&' separator between query elements.

What is the procedure for getting these BIP's corrected? Submit a pull
request with the changes? Hopefully we can all agree that these fixes
are useful and necessary.

-William

P.S. The bitcoin-qt client uses QUrl to parse bitcoin uri's, and that
is based on RFC 3986. Thus, the bitcoin-qt client is probably already
implementing these suggestions.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-03-06 22:38 [Bitcoin-development] bip-0021 and bip-0072 ambiguities & mistakes William Swanson

  2014-03-07  2:16   ` William Swanson
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2014-03-06 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: William Swanson;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]

Yes please, pull req would be great! I also noticed that escaping doesn't
seem to be necessary, and the resultant de-escaped QRcodes are certainly
much nicer! Thanks!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 227 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-03-06 22:59 ` Mike Hearn

  
From: William Swanson @ 2014-03-07  2:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> Yes please, pull req would be great! I also noticed that escaping doesn't
> seem to be necessary, and the resultant de-escaped QRcodes are certainly
> much nicer! Thanks!

All right, I have submitted the pull request. Hopefully, the specified
behavior now corresponds more closely to what the bitcoin-qt client is
actually doing, and to what the RFC recommends.

-William



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]