Minutes of the Internet Open Trading Protocol (iotp) BOF
Chair: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <email@example.com>
Reported by Surendra Reddy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
1) Don started the BOF meeting explaining the main intent as to assess the interest of participants in forming a working group to develop an internet based trading protocol based on existing OTP specification which is being developed by OTP consortium.
2) Then he made a presentation on overview of existing OTP standard
3) Following issues were raised during Don's OTP overview presentation:
a) What is the scope of the IOTP working Group? Is this working group is going to mandate in defining the business problem, requirements document?
b) Existing payment systems and its interoperability - Scope of the payment protocol? How does it differ from EDI? Are there any overlap among OFX(Open Financial Exchange), EDI
c) How does it relate to SET?
d) Does a concept of auctioneer is required or not?
e) Mechanisms for transporting trading objects - mandate at least web and email mechanisms?
f) Some of the participants expressed their concern on the scope and work items of this group?
g) OTP should at least support Electronic Funds Transfer, Checks and Credit Cards? This throws the question of what need to be there in OTP and what need not be should be clearly defined upfront. Otherwise, we land up in rate holes. Participants repeatedly indicated the need for Requirements document.
h) Participants expressed confusion about whether the OTP is a transport protocol or XML schema. If it is just XML schema representations, participants felt that IETF is not the right forum to address schema. Don Clarified that OTP is protocol and XML schema. Hence putting under IETF makes more sense.
i) Participants raised questions on why OTP consortium wanted to transfer it to IETF, which does not have domain expertise in trading related issues? Various participants discussed this issue and explained that combining the trading expertise of OTP consortium and protocol design expertise of IETF, we can design a high quality protocol.
4) Then Don presented working group charter as follows:
The Internet Open Trading Protocol provides an interoperable framework for Internet commerce. It is payment system independent and able to handle cases where such roles as the merchant, the payment received, the deliverer of goods or services, and the provider of customer support are performed by different parties or the party.
The Internet Open Trading Protocol working group will republish the existing Baseline Internet OTP (version 1.0) protocol specification as an Informational RFC and develop IOTP version 2.0.
Selection of items for inclusion in v2.0 is expected to be from the following and others suggested by the Working Group:
- Dynamic Definition of Trading Sequences
- Multiple Protocol Options
- Offer Request Block
- Public Key Signatures (v1.0 uses secret key signatures)
- Signatures on the Delivery Response
- Improved Problem Resolution (extend to cover presentation of signed receipt to customer support party, etc.)
- Selection of Additional Options
- Shorter Element and Attribute Names
- Transaction Status Inquiry
- OTP Architecture (informational development of standard interfaces to software components).
- Mapping OTP Messages to other Transport Layers
Following issues are raised on the Working Group Charter:
a) Requirements document should be part of the working group work items
b) Participants expressed concerns about OTP releasing current document as informational RFC - confuse it will create among the current users of this protocol?
5) Finally, Don presented the Working Group goals and milestones as follows:
Goals and Milestones:
1.A Publication of IOTP v1.0 as an internet draft, WG formation + 2 months.
1.B Publication of IOTP v1.0 as an Informational RFC, 1.A + 1 month.
2.A IOTP v2.0 requirements document initial release as an internet draft, WG formation + 2 months.
2.B IOTP v2.0 requirements document as an Informational RFC. 2.A + 2 months.
3.A IOTP v2.0 specification initial release as an internet draft, WG formation + 4 months.
3.B IOTP v2.0 specification as a Proposed Standard RFC, 3.A + 3 months.
Following comments are made on the milestones and goals:
(a). Overall schedule looks acceptable.
6) Following are the Open Issues that need to be addressed?
a) Why IETF is chosen a place for reviewing the OTP protocol against consortium. Trading experts from consortium and drawexperts from IETF? It is appropriate for IETF to get involve in it?
b) Interleaving financial technology and networking -- commitment from consortium members and their commitment to make this working group successful.
c) Expressed concerns on scope of the working group - infinitely expanding charters - not having requirement documents will throw working group into rat holes.
d) Does the consortium agree to hand over to IETF and whether members are committed to participate in this effort? Whether or not issuing informational RFC confuse the market?
e) Whether to publish some documents as informational or continue working on taking to the standards?
f) Define and agreed on goals for 2.0 and start working on them.
g) Are there any current reference implementations of OTP?
Finally, Applications AD(Harald Alvestrand) asked the participants whether they felt the need for such a working group or not? Majority of the participants supported forming Working Group. Application AD also asked participants commitment in working on this working group. Reasonably good number of people expressed their intent to work on this working group.
go to list