# Questions about "interactions" in ILP Addresses

**URL:** <https://forum.interledger.org/t/questions-about-interactions-in-ilp-addresses/717>\
**Category:** Protocol Design\
**Created:** [August 15, 2019, 7:15pm UTC](https://forum.interledger.org/t/questions-about-interactions-in-ilp-addresses/717 "2019-08-15T19:15:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sappenin](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.interledger.org/sappenin/32/41_2.png) [@sappenin](https://forum.interledger.org/u/sappenin)\
**Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 7:15pm UTC](https://forum.interledger.org/t/questions-about-interactions-in-ilp-addresses/717/1 "2019-08-15T19:15:22Z")

</div>

In response to a [new contribution](https://github.com/hyperledger/quilt/pull/217) in the ILP Core Java library, I’m wondering if anyone has an opinion here.

[IL-RFC-15](https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/0015-ilp-addresses/0015-ilp-addresses.md#interactions) includes a section about “interactions” which uses a `~` character as a separator.

I’m wondering the following:

1. Is there anything normative about interactions? Put another way, does `~` have any special meaning, or is what’s shown in the RFC just an example of how one _might_ implement something like interactions?

2. Put _another_ way: could someone represent interactions using `-` or even `_` ?

3. Per the question above, would the following addresses include valid “interactions”?

4. Should this be an invalid ILP valid address: `g.~.foo`

5. The RFC indicates that the interactions of this address (`~ipr.cdfa5e16-e759-4ba3-88f6-8b9dc83c1868.2`) are `~ipr`, `cdfa5e16-e759-4ba3-88f6-8b9dc83c1868` and `2`. However, if the `~` is meant to indicate an interaction, then shouldn’t the interactions instead be: `ipr`, `cdfa5e16-e759-4ba3-88f6-8b9dc83c1868` and `2`

6. If the answer directly above is “no”, then I would assume this would be the preferred way to indicate 3 separate interactions: `~ipr.~cdfa5e16-e759-4ba3-88f6-8b9dc83c1868.~2`?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![emschwartz](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.interledger.org/emschwartz/32/12_2.png) [@emschwartz](https://forum.interledger.org/u/emschwartz)\
**Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 8:08pm UTC](https://forum.interledger.org/t/questions-about-interactions-in-ilp-addresses/717/2 "2019-08-15T20:08:19Z")

</div>

I don’t see much value in mandating or disallowing any particular use of `~`, `-`, or `_`. The only special character is `.`, which everyone must have the same understanding of. It’s useful to provide various separators that implementations and higher level protocols can use without lower-level components trying to divine any special meaning from them.

> [@sappenin](#):
>
> Is there anything normative about interactions?

No

> [@sappenin](#):
>
> Put _another_ way: could someone represent interactions using `-` or even `_` ?

Yes

> [@sappenin](#):
>
> Per the question above, would the following addresses include valid “interactions”?

Doesn’t really matter

> [@sappenin](#):
>
> Should this be an invalid ILP valid address: `g.~.foo`

No

> [@sappenin](#):
>
> However, if the `~` is meant to indicate an interaction, then shouldn’t the interactions instead be: `ipr` , `cdfa5e16-e759-4ba3-88f6-8b9dc83c1868` and `2`

Also don’t think it matters much

> [@sappenin](#):
>
> If the answer directly above is “no”, then I would assume this would be the preferred way to indicate 3 separate interactions: `~ipr.~cdfa5e16-e759-4ba3-88f6-8b9dc83c1868.~2` ?

Up to the implementations

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sappenin](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.interledger.org/sappenin/32/41_2.png) [@sappenin](https://forum.interledger.org/u/sappenin)\
**Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 8:43pm UTC](https://forum.interledger.org/t/questions-about-interactions-in-ilp-addresses/717/3 "2019-08-15T20:43:33Z")

</div>

Thanks @emschwartz that’s very helpful!