- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:51:20 -0400
- To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 06/03/2016 12:08 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > http://digitalbazaar.github.io/flex-ledger/vocabulary.html > > Looking at : > > "source": "https://example.org/accounts/jane/7", > "destination": "https://foo.com/accounts/bob/3", > "remoteLedger": "https://foo.com/ledgers/blah/3445", > "transfer": { > "amount": "23.45", > "currency": "USD" > } > > Having coded in this area Im super nervous about sending money to > documents (ie without a fragment ID). In this case ... jane/7 I wouldn't put a great deal of weight on that example, Melvin. It was just a rough approximation of what an interledger payment could look like between two ledgers that didn't require the Interledger protocol. Highly experimental, so don't take it as a proposed way forward. > I strongly suspect this is an anti pattern and perhaps should be > considered harmful. Just consider, all possibly http headers (present > and future) that apply to this entity also apply to the entity you are > transferring money to. Is this not an accident waiting to happen? I'm curious, what's the attack you're concerned about? Also, if it's an issue, no problem w/ changing it to a hash-based URL. We've taken this approach for account IDs and haven't hit an issue with them yet, but that doesn't mean there isn't an issue. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
Received on Friday, 3 June 2016 18:51:44 UTC