- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:02:20 -0500
- To: public-webpayments@w3.org
On 02/10/2014 11:46 PM, Anders Rundgren wrote: > The difference as I see it is that a DateTime says "when" while a > MessageID uniquely identifies the actual message from the sender's > perspective like for example a PO number. > > Nanosecond time-stamps are (de-facto) non-standard which is another > possible objection to the current scheme. True, but no one said that the timestamp has to be accurate. It just has to count up. Machines that don't have a stable sub-second counter can still create a counter and count up (which is the "MessageID" approach you talk about). That is, both can be used in the same mechanism. Message 1: 2014-03-02T20:59:40,000000001-0000 Message 1: 2014-03-02T21:00:30,000000002-0000 ... and so on. Note the MessageID is just a counter that counts up, injected into the nanosecond field of the ISO-8601 datetime. I'm playing devil's advocate. The cleaner design would clearly be to have a separate "nonce" field that counts up. The question is, do we really need that? I'm claiming that we don't and the above is simpler to implement than the latter nonce-based approach. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: The Worlds First Web Payments Workshop http://www.w3.org/2013/10/payments/
Received on Monday, 3 March 2014 02:02:50 UTC