Subject: Re: Future of the TRADE Working Group
From: Vadim Fedukovich <[email-masked]>
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:22:11 +0800
List-Id: <ietf-trade.lists.elistx.com>

Dear Donald,

please let me say thank you first.
It's the great job done, by this group.

Unfortunately, current status of code running in production
reminds me chicken-and-egg problem because of payment methods
available. It was nice to see SET developing and even running
for some time. It makes me do something (Naina tool)
that might work with trading applications.

As I see it now, acquiring banks (at best) provide some
custom black-box tools that runs on "popular" operating systems.
Sometime communities manage to come up with something better
like cashcow.dk

My reason to stay subscribed is to be aware of development (if any)
in this area. Hope it might flourish some day given reasonable
payment solution running

best regards,
Vadim

p.s. the tool mentioned is an open-source implementation
that was tested to run payment session for a well-known
production-grade wallet
http://www.unity.net/~vf/naina_r1.tgz

Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The poor attendance at the last several TRADE working group
> meetings (approximately zero in November 2003 in Minneapolis)
> and, even more important, the very low traffic level on the
> TRADE WG mailing list over the past year and more, indicate
> that there is now relatively little IETF community interest
> in this working group. About the only evidence that there
> is still community interest is the 148 email addresses
> subscribed to the TRADE WG mailing list.
> 
> Although the group has accomplished a lot over the years,
> producing the IOTP v1 document, many documents supporting IOTP
> v1, and good drafts in the digital voucher and ECML areas,
> it seems like a good idea to finish getting the current drafts
> through and wind up its activities.
> 
> The remaining milestones in the current version of the WG
> Charter, http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/trade-charter.html,
> all relate to new documents on IOTP and an IOTP v2. This
> seems to be the area with the least interest. I therefore
> think that these remaining milestones should be dropped.
> Similarly, the two WG drafts that have not yet been submitted
> to the IESG, draft-ietf-trade-iotp-http2-00.txt and
> draft-ietf-trade-srv-higher-services-01.txt, should be
> detached from the working group and allowed to time out.
> 
> The four drafts which are now pending with the IESG,
> however, in my opinion, are useful work and should be
> progressed to RFC pubication:
> 
> 1. The -papi- draft had one minor IESG comment, has
> been revised and posted. and I think it likely that it
> will be approved relatively soon.
> 
> 2/3: The two voucher drafts had slightly more comments
> but have been revised and posted for a while and no
> negative comments have appeared. I plan to post a
> separate message initiating a two week working group
> last call for comments on these drafts.
> 
> 4: By far the most IESG comments were on the ECML v2
> draft. This was intended to become a Proposed Standard.
> But, since it seems unclear that there will be the
> interest needed to progress it along the standards
> track, I am inclinde to change the target status of
> this to Informational instead or Proposed Standard.
> This would make it easier to get approval and would
> remove the expectation that further work would be
> done to progess it along the standards track. But it
> would still become a permanent document as an RFC.
> 
> Feel free to post any comments on the above ideas.
> 
> If the working group is dissolved, the mailing list
> would stay in place and a new working group could
> always be chartered in this area in the future.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===========================================================
>  Donald E. Eastlake III       [email-masked]
>  Motorola Laboratories               1-508-786-7554 (work)
>  111 Locke Drive                     1-508-634-2066 (home)
>  Marlboro, MA 01752 USA
>  

Content-return: allowed
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:05:49 -0500
From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Future of the TRADE Working Group
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>

Hi,

The poor attendance at the last several TRADE working group
meetings (approximately zero in November 2003 in Minneapolis)
and, even more important, the very low traffic level on the
TRADE WG mailing list over the past year and more, indicate
that there is now relatively little IETF community interest
in this working group. About the only evidence that there
is still community interest is the 148 email addresses
subscribed to the TRADE WG mailing list.

Although the group has accomplished a lot over the years,
producing the IOTP v1 document, many documents supporting IOTP
v1, and good drafts in the digital voucher and ECML areas,
it seems like a good idea to finish getting the current drafts
through and wind up its activities.

The remaining milestones in the current version of the WG
Charter, http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/trade-charter.html,
all relate to new documents on IOTP and an IOTP v2. This
seems to be the area with the least interest. I therefore
think that these remaining milestones should be dropped.
Similarly, the two WG drafts that have not yet been submitted
to the IESG, draft-ietf-trade-iotp-http2-00.txt and
draft-ietf-trade-srv-higher-services-01.txt, should be
detached from the working group and allowed to time out.

The four drafts which are now pending with the IESG,
however, in my opinion, are useful work and should be
progressed to RFC pubication:

1. The -papi- draft had one minor IESG comment, has
been revised and posted. and I think it likely that it
will be approved relatively soon.

2/3: The two voucher drafts had slightly more comments
but have been revised and posted for a while and no
negative comments have appeared. I plan to post a
separate message initiating a two week working group
last call for comments on these drafts.

4: By far the most IESG comments were on the ECML v2
draft. This was intended to become a Proposed Standard.
But, since it seems unclear that there will be the
interest needed to progress it along the standards
track, I am inclinde to change the target status of
this to Informational instead or Proposed Standard.
This would make it easier to get approval and would
remove the expectation that further work would be
done to progess it along the standards track. But it
would still become a permanent document as an RFC.

Feel free to post any comments on the above ideas.

If the working group is dissolved, the mailing list
would stay in place and a new working group could
always be chartered in this area in the future.

Thanks,
Donald
===========================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake III       [email-masked]
 Motorola Laboratories               1-508-786-7554 (work)
 111 Locke Drive                     1-508-634-2066 (home)
 Marlboro, MA 01752 USA

Content-return: allowed
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:25:05 -0500
From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-06.txt
To: [email-masked]

I thought things were fixed so ID announcements would come through on the TRADE WG
mailing list but I guess not or I wouldn't have to forward this...

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Internet Open Trading Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Payment API for v1.0 Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP)
	Author(s)	: W. Hans,  et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-06.txt
	Pages		: 103
	Date		: 2004-3-25
	
The Internet Open Trading Protocol provides a data exchange format
for trading purposes while integrating existing pure payment
protocols seamlessly. This motivates the multiple layered system
architecture which consists of at least some generic IOTP application
core and multiple specific payment modules.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-06.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-06.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-06.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Content-return: allowed
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:34:21 -0500
From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: IESG commet on draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-05/06
To: 'Masaaki Hiroya' <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Hi,

Yes, those looks like exactly the right changes. I will post the draft and notify our new area director, Scott Hollenbeck. We will see if there are any other objections but I hope that with this change it can be approved quickly.

Thanks,
Donald
===========================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake III       [email-masked]
 Motorola Laboratories               1-508-786-7554 (work)
 111 Locke Drive                     1-508-634-2066 (home)
 Marlboro, MA 01752 USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Masaaki Hiroya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:23 PM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IESG commet on draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-05

Hello Mr. Eastlake

I'm not sure how I should respond to the IESG comment on I-D draft,
but I attached the updated version of I-D draft.

The updated parts are as follows:

(OLD)(draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-05)
    MerchantData        Any merchant related data that might be
                        used by the IOTP Payment Bridge for
                        different purposes, e.g., it might
                        contain access keys to some mall keys.
                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        Its declaration coincides with the
                        Packaged Content's declaration (cf. IOTP
                        Specification).

(NEW)(draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-06)
    MerchantData        Any merchant related data that might be
                        used by the IOTP Payment Bridge for
                        different purposes, e.g., it might
                        contain IDs to access some mall data,
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        but not cryptographic keys. Its Packaged
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        declaration coincides with the Content's
                        declaration (cf. IOTP Specification).

I think this correction covers the IESG comment.

Besides, I updated the Author's Address section as follows:

(OLD)
         Yoshiaki Kawatsura
         Hitachi, Ltd.
         890 Kashimada Saiwai-ku Kawasaki-shi
         Kanagawa, Japan 212-8567
         E-mail: [email-masked]
(NEW)
         Yoshiaki Kawatsura
         Hitachi, Ltd.
         890 Kashimada Saiwai-ku Kawasaki-shi
         Kanagawa, Japan 212-8567
         E-mail: [email-masked]
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(OLD)
         Masaaki Hiroya
         Technoinfo Service, Inc.
         1155-6-206 Ichigao-cho
         Aoba-ku, Yokohama
         Kanagawa 225-0024 JAPAN
         Phone: +81-45-978-4522
         Email: [email-masked]
(NEW)
         Masaaki Hiroya
         Technoinfo Service, Inc.
         333-2-718 Uchikoshi-machi
         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         Hachioji-shi
         ~~~~~~~~~~~~
         Tokyo 192-0911 JAPAN
         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         Email: [email-masked]

If there is something else I should do, please let me know.

Best Regards
Masaaki

At 04/03/16 14:06, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
 >The IESG has provided the following comment on
 >       draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-05
 >
 >"The use of MerchantData makes me nervous.  The level of abstraction makes
 >it difficult to tell, but I think that MerchantData can contain plaintext
 >cryptographic keys, which would be very poor design."
 >
 >We need to respond to this comment.

-----
Masaaki Hiroya
[email-masked]

Content-return: allowed
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:18:14 -0500
From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: First_Name, Last_Name is no good
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

Peter,

Thanks for this comment. The working group is also in
receipt of a number of other comments from that IESG that
need responses. See
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/200402/msg00001.html

While I believe your criticism is correct, we need to give some
consideration to backward compatibility with those systems that
have in implemented ECML v1.1 (RFC 3106). (See also the IESG
Note on the front page of the earlier RFC 2706.) The ECML standard
is primarily an internal data naming/structure standard and the
names it specifies are not necessarily ever seen by end users.
Given this, I am wondering if it would be sufficient to document
First_Name and Last_Name, which have essentially not explanation
in the current draft, so as to explain how to handle other cases.

(Everyone on the list is welcome to comment on this. This list
has been too dead recently and more traffic would be welcome.)

Thanks,
Donald

PS: One minor comment. The IETF is an international organization
so its standards or informational documents are not "United
States" standards or informational documents.
===========================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake III       [email-masked]
 Motorola Laboratories               1-508-786-7554 (work)
 111 Locke Drive                     1-508-634-2066 (home)
 Marlboro, MA 01752

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter, James J. [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 4:46 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: First_Name, Last_Name is no good

I suggest that this group lead the United States away from the "First_Name, Last_Name" identifier convention because it is culturally biased and dysfunctional.  It does not accommodate the naming conventions of Hispanic families, for example, where five names in a particular order identify an individual.  Plus in some other countries the surname is given first.
"Given_Name, Sur_Name" should be used at the minimum. 

A world-wide multicultural standard is needed. 

Regards 
James J. Peter 
Johns Hopkins University 
Applied Physics Laboratory 
11100 Johns Hopkins Road 
Laurel, MD  20723-6099 
443-778-5958  from Baltimore, or 
240-228-5958  from Washington DC 
Fax 443-778-6921, or 240-228-6921 
[email-masked] 
www.jhuapl.edu 

Content-return: allowed
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:45:44 -0500
From: "Peter, James J." <[email-masked]>
Subject: First_Name, Last_Name is no good
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C40BA0.08C5F340
Content-Type: text/plain

I suggest that this group lead the United States away from the "First_Name,
Last_Name" identifier convention because it is culturally biased and
dysfunctional.  It does not accommodate the naming conventions of Hispanic
families, for example, where five names in a particular order identify an
individual.  Plus in some other countries the surname is given first.

"Given_Name, Sur_Name" should be used at the minimum.

A world-wide multicultural standard is needed.

Regards

James J. Peter
Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD  20723-6099
443-778-5958  from Baltimore, or
240-228-5958  from Washington DC
Fax 443-778-6921, or 240-228-6921
[email-masked]
www.jhuapl.edu <www.jhuapl.edu> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C40BA0.08C5F340
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>First_Name, Last_Name is no good</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I suggest that this group lead the =
United States away from the &quot;First_Name, Last_Name&quot; =
identifier convention because it is culturally biased and =
dysfunctional.&nbsp; It does not accommodate the naming conventions of =
Hispanic families, for example, where five names in a particular order =
identify an individual.&nbsp; Plus in some other countries the surname =
is given first.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;Given_Name, Sur_Name&quot; =
should be used at the minimum.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">A world-wide multicultural standard is =
needed.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Regards</FONT>
</P>

<P><I><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">James J. Peter</FONT></I>
<BR><I><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Johns Hopkins =
University</FONT></I>
<BR><I><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Applied Physics =
Laboratory</FONT></I>
<BR><I><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">11100 Johns Hopkins =
Road</FONT></I>
<BR><I><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Laurel, MD&nbsp; =
20723-6099</FONT></I>
<BR><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#FF0000" SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">443-778-5958&nbsp; from Baltimore, or</FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#FF0000" SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">240-228-5958&nbsp; from Washington DC</FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#FF0000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Fax =
443-778-6921, or 240-228-6921</FONT></B>
<BR><U><I><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">[email-masked]</FONT></I></U><I></I>
<BR><I></I><A HREF=3D"www.jhuapl.edu"><I><U></U><U><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">www.jhuapl.edu</FONT></U></I></A><I></I>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C40BA0.08C5F340--

Content-return: allowed
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:06:53 -0500
From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Subject: IESG commet on draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-05
To: [email-masked]

The IESG has provided the following comment on
	draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi-05

"The use of MerchantData makes me nervous.  The level of abstraction makes
it difficult to tell, but I think that MerchantData can contain plaintext
cryptographic keys, which would be very poor design."

We need to respond to this comment.

Thanks,
Donald
===========================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake III       [email-masked]
 Motorola Laboratories               1-508-786-7554 (work)
 111 Locke Drive                     1-508-634-2066 (home)
 Marlboro, MA 01752 USA