{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stellar/docs/issues/185","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stellar/docs","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stellar/docs/issues/185/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stellar/docs/issues/185/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stellar/docs/issues/185/events","html_url":"https://github.com/stellar/docs/pull/185","id":195526512,"number":185,"title":"Compliance doc updates","user":{"login":"bartekn","id":464938,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/464938?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn","html_url":"https://github.com/bartekn","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":1,"created_at":"2016-12-14T13:08:48Z","updated_at":"2016-12-14T19:46:34Z","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stellar/docs/pulls/185","html_url":"https://github.com/stellar/docs/pull/185","diff_url":"https://github.com/stellar/docs/pull/185.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/stellar/docs/pull/185.patch"},"body":"After talking with a partner who wants to implement Compliance Protocol I realized that this document can be improved:\r\n* I added example requests/responses.\r\n* I added more information on requests format.\r\n* I removed features that aren't there yet (ex. `ENCRYPTION_KEY`, `simple_aml`)\r\n\r\nI also found some things that needs to be changed:\r\n* Stellar Memo convention still links to the old spec which isn't used in production. I think we need to describe new Memo convention in a separate doc.\r\n* I noticed this commit: https://github.com/stellar/bridge-server/commit/9e251b6c75c2170310ac79eeefa837efd7778777 It wasn't clear which value should be used in `route` parameter. This needs to be specified in this doc.\r\n* This specification is still not clear on sequence number of `tx` sent in auth request and how to handle multiple transactions with the same memo hash:\r\n  * For `memo` I think we should introduce `nonce` which will be a required, random value field in top level of memo json. Then `memo` value will always be different for any two transactions.\r\n  * If we decide to go with the solution above, sequence number in `tx` can be ignored. The transaction received will be identified by it's memo value only."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stellar/docs/issues/comments/267136234","html_url":"https://github.com/stellar/docs/pull/185#issuecomment-267136234","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stellar/docs/issues/185","id":267136234,"user":{"login":"bartekn","id":464938,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/464938?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn","html_url":"https://github.com/bartekn","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bartekn/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-12-14T19:46:34Z","updated_at":"2016-12-14T19:46:34Z","body":"Any thoughts on the questions?\r\n\r\n> * Stellar Memo convention still links to the old spec which isn't used in production. I think we need to describe new Memo convention in a separate doc.\r\n\r\nShould we just write down the structure of memos as of [now](https://github.com/stellar/bridge-server/blob/master/src/github.com/stellar/gateway/protocols/memo/memo.go) or do you or @jedmccaleb what do change anything?\r\n\r\n> * I noticed this commit: https://github.com/stellar/bridge-server/commit/9e251b6c75c2170310ac79eeefa837efd7778777 It wasn't clear which value should be used in `route` parameter. This needs to be specified in this doc.\r\n\r\nAre we staying with this or rather use stellar address in `route`? I think the only downside of using federation response value instead of address is for organizations where each client has a separate account so `route` would be empty and integrators would have to check destination account id *and* `route` value.\r\n\r\n> * This specification is still not clear on sequence number of `tx` sent in auth request and how to handle multiple transactions with the same memo hash:\r\n>    * For `memo` I think we should introduce `nonce` which will be a required, random value field in top level of memo json. Then `memo` value will always be different for any two transactions.\r\n>    * If we decide to go with the solution above, sequence number in `tx` can be ignored. The transaction received will be identified by it's memo value only.\r\n\r\nIs everyone OK with `nonce`?"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"bartekn"}}