Last Modified: 2003-10-01
The working group will document interoperability experience with IOTP version 1 (which has been published as an Informational RFC) and develop the requirements and specifications for IOTP version 2. Version 2 will make use of an independent Messaging Layer and utilize standard XML Digital Signatures. Selection of other items for inclusion in version requirements 2 is to be from the following:
- Dynamic Definition of Trading Sequences
- Offer Request Block
- Improved Problem Resolution (extend to cover presentation of signed receipt to customer support party, etc.) - Ability to indicate and handle a payment protocol not tunneled through IOTP
- Support for wallet servers
- Repeated/ongoing payments - Server to Server messages
- The ability to add both fields and attributes to trading blocks
- Collaboration with other protocols such as ECML.
The following is out of scope for IOTP version 2:
- legal or regulatory issues surrounding the implementation of the protocol or information systems using it.
- design of an XML Messaging Layer
The working group will specify a Secure Channel Credit Debit syntax that can be used for financial card payments in connection with IOTP.
The working group will specify requirements and specifications for Generic Rights Trading.
The working group will specify requirements for and then a syntax and processing model of ECML (Electronic Commerce Modeling Language) V2.
|Done||Submit SET Supplement to IESG for publication as Informational|
|Done||Submit Architecture and Payment API to IESG forInformational|
|Done||Submit Generic Rights Trading Requirements for Informational|
|Done||Submit I-D on IOTP V2.0 Requirements|
|Done||Submit I-D on Generic Right Trading Specification|
|Done||Submit ECML V2.0 Requirements to IESG (Informational)|
|Done||Submit IOTP V2.0 Requirements (Informational)|
|Mar 02||Submit I-D on Secure Channel Credit/Debit ECML V2.0 Specification|
|Done||Submit Generic Right Trading Specification (Proposed Standard)|
|Jul 02||Submit Secure Channel Credit/Debit ECML V2.0 Specification (Proposed Standard).|
|Dec 02||Submit I-D on IOTP V2.0 Specification|
|Jul 03||Submit IOTP V2.0 Specification (Proposed Standard)|
|RFC2803||I||Digest Values for DOM (DOMHASH)|
|RFC2802||I||Digital Signatures for the 1.0 Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP)|
|RFC2801||I||Internet Open Trading Protocol - IOTP Version 1.0|
|RFC2935||PS||Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP) HTTP Supplement|
|RFC2936||I||HTTP MIME Type Handler Detection|
|RFC3354||I||Internet Open Trading Protocol Version 2 Requirements|
|RFC3504||I||Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP) Version 1, Errata|
|RFC3505||I||Electronic Commerce Modeling Language (ECML):Version 2 Requirements|
|RFC3506||I||Requirements and Design for Voucher Trading System (VTS)|
|RFC3538||I||Secure Electronic Transaction (SET) Supplement for the v1.0 Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP)|
listTRADE WG Minutes, IETF 58 Minneapolis Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Attendance at the meeting was very poor. In the end, there were six names on the blue sheets. All of the slides were not gone through. Instead there was primarily a discussion of the following issues: -- Should the draft-ietf-trade-srv-higher-services-01.txt and draft-ietf-trade-iotp-http2-00.txt be changed to use S-NAPTR as described in draft-daigle-napstr-03.txt instead of SRV? This avoids the problem of an explosion in the number of names to look up for a service available over multiple transports. On the other hand, it could conceivably be a problem if enough different services used that technique at a single FQDN. The consensus of the room was to change to using S-NAPTR. -- In light of the very low activity on the TRADE WG Mailing List and very low attendance at the WG meeting at this and the previous IETF Meeting, should the working group be dissolved sooner rather than later and these last two drafts be processed as personal submissions rather than WG documents? This is primarily for the Ned Freed, the area director for TRADE, to decide in consultation with the chair. Attendees: Donald Eastlake (TRADE WG chair), Ted Hardie (Applications co-AD), Leslie Daigle (IAB member), Andrew Newton, Mike Ko, Scott Bradner (IAB member).