Redirected payment pointers

Protocol Design
Oct 14, 2019
S

Hi,

As a end-user, say I wanted to use a shorter payment pointer for web monetization. E.g.

<meta name="monetization" content="$example.com">

What would be required to point this to the payment pointer provided by my wallet provider?

Is HTTP 302 redirecting https://example.com/.well-known/pay to https://pay.stronghold.co/<myaccounthash> enough?

A

The specification is not actually specific on this so it will really depend on the client.

ilp-protocol-spsp is the reference client and uses node-fetch which will follow redirects by default so I’d say the answer is YES.

I’ll update the spec to reflect this

S
Replying to #2

Thanks for the clarification! Remember to specify the max number of redirects and that the whole redirect-chain must use HTTPS.

Update: Oh, and 301 permanent can be cached whereas 302 shouldn’t be cached longer than cache-control:max-age=sec response header allows. HTTP basics but people don’t know these things.

S

I’ve deployed this redirected short-form payment pointer on my blog. Hopefully it will still work with Coil.

There’s less data and a lot less unique data in a short-form payment pointer that matches the site’s domain compared to the full payment pointer from Stronhold. Switching from one to the other shaved off an average 2,97% of the total compressed filesize for my webpages.

Please let me know if anyone encounters issues with my redirected short-form vanity payment pointer. (Or if the spec changes so this no longer works.)