Re: HTTP 402 in use

HTTP message composition must be sufficiently granular to handle all
use cases.

Here are 6 events in a contract, from initial offer to delivery:
[1] John Offer $1
[2] John Terms Water
[3] Mary Agree (becomes a contract)
[4] Mary Deliver Water
[5] John Deliver $1
[6] End transaction

Headers to describe [1] John's Offer:
Transaction-ID:  123
Commerce-ID:  John
Event-Type:  Offer
Description:  $1
Time-Stamp:  2018-03-26T23:40:30

Headers to describe [2] John's Terms:
Transaction-ID:  123
Commerce-ID:  John
Event-Type:  Terms
Description:  Water
Time-Stamp:  2018-03-26T23:40:31

etc.

Each is its own HTTP message?


On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 26 March 2018 at 16:31, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>>
>> Pity it only works on Lightning though... Would be nice to get some
>> collaboration on something that works across any payment network
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hope-bailie-http-payments-00
>> https://interledger.org/rfcs/0014-http-ilp/
>>
>> https://medium.com/interledger-blog/http-ilp-paid-api-calls-with-interledger-fda53643a2eb
>
>
> Thanks for the pointers.
>
> I'm a fan of the work on lightning, however the 402 response itself doesnt
> seem to be lightning specific
>
> So it seems that the main difference is that this work uses
>
> X-Token
>
> vs the draft using
>
> Pay-Token
>
> And the body contains bolt11 payment request
>
> Both approaches seem reasonable?
>
> Perhaps the draft could look at a variety of implementations and use cases.
>
>>
>>
>> On 26 March 2018 at 13:15, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Very cool use of HTTP 402 -- Payment Required -- in the paypercall
>>> lightning network app
>>>
>>> https://github.com/ElementsProject/paypercall#paying-for-api-calls
>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 26 March 2018 16:47:35 UTC