# Push Payments and Invoices

**URL:** <https://forum.interledger.org/t/push-payments-and-invoices/103>\
**Category:** Protocol Design\
**Tags:** spsp, application-layer, pre-rfc\
**Created:** [February 6, 2019, 11:30pm UTC](https://forum.interledger.org/t/push-payments-and-invoices/103 "2019-02-06T23:30:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sabinebertram](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.interledger.org/sabinebertram/32/48_2.png) [@sabinebertram](https://forum.interledger.org/u/sabinebertram)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 7:57pm UTC](https://forum.interledger.org/t/push-payments-and-invoices/103/21 "2019-02-11T19:57:03Z")

</div>

Back to invoices:  
What is the list of parameters we want to spec out, which parameters are included in an endpoint query response?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sabinebertram](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.interledger.org/sabinebertram/32/48_2.png) [@sabinebertram](https://forum.interledger.org/u/sabinebertram)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 11:43pm UTC](https://forum.interledger.org/t/push-payments-and-invoices/103/22 "2019-02-27T23:43:54Z")

</div>

The is a new PR containing the basic SPSP spec ready for review: [https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/pull/513](https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/pull/513)

Regarding invoices:

> [@sabinebertram](#):
>
> What is the list of parameters we want to spec out, which parameters are included in an endpoint query response?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sabinebertram](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.interledger.org/sabinebertram/32/48_2.png) [@sabinebertram](https://forum.interledger.org/u/sabinebertram)\
**Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 12:08am UTC](https://forum.interledger.org/t/push-payments-and-invoices/103/23 "2019-03-07T00:08:20Z")

</div>

Due to the lack of further discussions, I created a PR for an invoice spec suggestion: [#519](https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/pull/519)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DanCarroll](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.interledger.org/dancarroll/32/161_2.png) [@DanCarroll](https://forum.interledger.org/u/DanCarroll)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://forum.interledger.org/t/push-payments-and-invoices/103/24 "2019-03-22T20:05:42Z")

</div>

> [@emschwartz](#):
>
> why not just adopt an invoice standard like the [schema.org](http://schema.org) one?

Seems to be fairly comprehensive. Do you think any additional fields for ILP references would be needed? (I don’t think so)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sabinebertram](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.interledger.org/sabinebertram/32/48_2.png) [@sabinebertram](https://forum.interledger.org/u/sabinebertram)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 5:40am UTC](https://forum.interledger.org/t/push-payments-and-invoices/103/25 "2019-05-10T05:40:54Z")

</div>

After comments that the [schema.org](https://schema.org/) spec is too complicated for what we want to achieve, I updated the [PR](https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/pull/519) to make it simpler and more comparable to the [pull payment spec](https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/0036-spsp-pull-payments/0036-spsp-pull-payments.md).

[Previous page](https://forum.interledger.org/t/push-payments-and-invoices/103.md?page=1)