- From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 06:29:04 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-webpayments@w3.org
On 2014-02-08 03:29, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 02/04/2014 03:51 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote: >> Melvin, This is a generic problem. In a system developed by the EU >> for dealing with e-passports over the border they "forgot" to say to >> the implementers how to deal with duplicates which have created a >> nightmare of non-interoperability. >> >> If I were to rule, duplicates should be tolerated but of course not >> generate a new transaction. This requires that each message >> carries a (for the sender) unique ID but that is pretty much >> standard. Date doesn't IMO suffice. > > Dates don't suffice, true... but what about ISO 8601 datetimes that have > nanosecond precision? I wouldn't go there because it could be (by some people) called a "kludge" and become a hurdle in a standardization process. As a "solution" it is though entirely satisfactory :-) Anyway, it is actually a bit nice to have a separate transaction/message ID which for example could be strictly sequential. The syntax should preferably be limited to Base64. Cheers Anders > > -- manu >
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2014 05:29:42 UTC