Rephrase last node payload requirements#615
Conversation
t-bast
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually thinking about this more, I prefer the previous "vague" wording.
You don't necessarily need to use a Bolt 11 invoice to pay someone / receive a payment.
The current wording is generally correct and less likely to change when new payment techniques are added.
Dismissing my review as after some thoughts, I prefer the original sentence.
|
The old wording however leaves it unclear where these numbers come from. It definitely took me a while to understand what it meant, but a spec should try to help the reader. What do you think about something like this:
or any other version that mentions |
|
That sounds good! |
|
Great, I'll change it now |
Mention that `outgoing_cltv_value` has to be equal to `min_final_cltv_expiry` and `amt_to_forward` has to be equal to `amount` if the [BOLT lightning#11](11-payment-encoding.md) invoice is used
|
@cdecker could we get your opinion/ack on that small change? |
|
ACK ae0146f |
Mention that
outgoing_cltv_valuehas to be equal tomin_final_cltv_expiryandamt_to_forwardhas to be equal toamount, as seen in the invoice