💾 Archived View for radia.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc3354.txt captured on 2024-05-10 at 18:28:55.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-14)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group D. Eastlake, III
Request for Comments: 3354 Motorola
Category: Informational August 2002
Internet Open Trading Protocol
Version 2 Requirements
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document gives requirements for the Internet Open Trading
Protocol (IOTP) Version 2 by describing design principles and scope
and dividing features into those which will, may, or will not be
included.
Version 2 of the IOTP will extend the interoperable framework for
Internet commerce capabilities of Version 1 while replacing the XML
messaging and digital signature part of IOTP v1 with standards based
mechanisms.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................2
2. Design Principles and Scope ....................................2
3. Requirements ...................................................2
4. Security Considerations ........................................4
References ........................................................4
Authors Addresses .................................................5
Full Copyright Statement ..........................................6
Eastlake Informational [Page 1]
RFC 3354 IOTP V2 Requirements August 2002
1. Introduction
Version 2 of the Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP) will extend
the interoperable framework for Internet commerce capabilities of
Version 1 [RFC 2801] as described in Section 3 below. In addition,
it will replace the ad hoc XML messaging and digital signature [RFC
2802] parts of IOTP v1 with standards based mechanisms [RFC 3275].
This document gives requirements for the Internet Open Trading
Protocol (IOTP) Version 2 by describing design principles and scope
and dividing features into those which will, may, or will not be
included.
2. Design Principles and Scope
1. The specification must describe the syntax and processing
necessary for an extension of the interoperable framework for
Internet commerce described in IOTP V1.0 [RFC 2801].
2. Keep changes to IOTP V1.0 to a minimum.
3. Maintain all existing functionality of IOTP V1.0.
4. Test all XML DTDs and/or Schemas and XML examples in the
specification to insure that they are well-formed.
5. Create usage/implementation guidance information, probably as a
separate document.
6. It should be designed to work well with other protocols such as
ECML [RFC 3106].
7. IOTP Version 2 should be developed as part of the broader Web
design philosophy of decentralization, URIs, Web data, and
modularity /layering / extensibility. [Berners-Lee, WebData] In
this context, this standard should take advantage of existing
provider (and infrastructure) primitives.
3. Requirements
IOTP Version 2 will include the following:
1. Be a superset of IOTP Version 1.
2. Provide for the Dynamic Definition of Trading Sequences. I.E.,
transactions will not be limited, as with v1, to a single payment
and a single delivery with delivery occurring after payment.
Eastlake Informational [Page 2]
RFC 3354 IOTP V2 Requirements August 2002
Instead, it will be possible to propose an arbitrary sequence of
transaction steps.
3. Include specification of an Offer Request Block.
4. Support Improved Problem Resolution (extend to cover presentation
of signed receipt to customer support party, better defined
Customer Care role, etc.).
5. Add provisions to indicate and handle a payment protocol not
tunneled through IOTP.
6. Add support for server based wallets.
The following may be include in IOTP v2:
1. Support Repeated/ongoing payments. For example, a means to
specify that a customer approval covers not only the instant
purchase but also some limited number of future purchase with some
total or per purchase spending limit.
2. Enhanced Server to Server messages. For example, a means for a
Delivery Handler to inform a Payment Handler that goods have
actually shipped, which may be a pre-condition for making a charge
against a credit card.
3. Include the ability to add both fields and attributes to existing
trading blocks in addition to the present ability to add entirely
new trading blocks.
The following are out of scope for IOTP version 2:
1. Legal or regulatory issues surrounding the implementation of the
protocol or information systems using it.
2. Design of an XML Messaging Layer. Instead, whatever is or appears
most likely to become the standard XML messaging layer will be
used. This includes a standard enveloping, addressing, and error
reporting framework.
3. Design of XML Digital Signatures. Instead, the existing standard
[RFC 3275] will be used.
Eastlake Informational [Page 3]
RFC 3354 IOTP V2 Requirements August 2002
4. Security Considerations
As provided above, IOTP v2 will provide optional authentication via
standards based XML Digital Signatures [RFC 3275]; however, neither
IOTP v1 nor v2 provide a confidentiality mechanism. Both require the
use of secure channels such as those provided by TLS [RFC 2246] or
IPSEC for confidentiality and depend on the security mechanisms of
any payment system used in conjunction with them to secure payments.
References
[Berners-Lee] "Axioms of Web Architecture: URIs",
<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html>, "Web
Architecture from 50,000 feet",
<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html>.
[RFC 2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC 2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol: Version
1.0", RFC 2246, January 1999.
[RFC 2801] Burdett, D., "Internet Open Trading Protocol - IOTP
Version 1.0", RFC 2801, April 2000.
[RFC 2802] Davidson, K. and Y. Kawatsura, "Digital Signatures for
the v1.0 Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP)", RFC
2802, April 2000.
[RFC 3106] Eastlake, D. and T. Goldstein, "ECML v1.1: Field Names
for E-Commerce", RFC 3106, April 2001.
[RFC 3275] Eastlake, D., Reagle, J. and D. Solo, "XML-Signature
Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275, March 2002.
[WebData] "Web Architecture: Describing and Exchanging Data",
<http://www.w3.org/1999/04/WebData>.
[XML] "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second
Edition)", <http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml>, T.
Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen.
Eastlake Informational [Page 4]
RFC 3354 IOTP V2 Requirements August 2002
Author's Addresses
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Motorola
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Phone: +1-508-851-8280 (w)
+1-508-634-2066 (h)
EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
Eastlake Informational [Page 5]
RFC 3354 IOTP V2 Requirements August 2002
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Eastlake Informational [Page 6]