- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:05:55 -0500
- To: public-webpayments@w3.org
On 02/11/2014 01:34 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > A specification's demand for a transaction / message ID which is > required to be unique and increasing is *much* easier to satisfy in a > portable manner than a requirement for “a nano-second precise > datetime value.” Yes, that's true. However, we could be very lax about the "nano-second precise" bit of it. No one has to know if you have a nanosecond precise time source or not. If you don't, just implement a message ID counter and dump that in the nanosecond field. See this email for a further explanation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014Mar/0005.html If we take this approach, we don't need a nonce spec. If we take the Message ID approach, we need a nonce spec. Trying to cut down on the amount of work that needs to be done and code implemented for this stuff. I also realize that this is being nitpicky, and could live w/ the nonce-approach if that's where consensus is. -- 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 02:06:21 UTC