Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 3/14/12 3:21 AM, Walter wrote:
>>>> All of the above are application-specific, and can be conveyed IMHO over
>>>> existing specified protocols.
>>>
>>> That's true. However, taking that view purely you could similarly
>>> argue that almost everything is out of IETF scope because IPv4, TCP
>>> and UDP exist.
>>
>> Indeed, XMPP, for example, and many other protocols that are
>> application-specific are standardized here are standardized here.
> 
> Sincere thanks for taking the time to reply. In case there's an
> audience still out there in the distinctly echoey (echoey...) halls of
> this thread, I have tried to address the valid points you raised
> below.
> 
>> I think the questions regarding whether to standardize financial
>> protocols here or not will be the same as with other application
>> protocols (and sub-IP protocols, for that matter).  Maybe someone more
>> familiar with past debates on similar issues can give us some
>> background.
> 
> As a student and aspiring author of history myself, I do not in any
> way wish to dissuade valuable historic inquiry, but this does seem a
> tad tangential in light of the apparent existence of formalized
> statements regarding the IETF's role and process. (That is, unless the
> IETF has somehow descended in to the dark and near unnavigable realm
> of ... "case law".*)
> 
> * Possible theme for a future roguelike? "You prize open the case law
> archive. Mouldy remnants of past inquiry flap woefully in the
> millennial breeze. The stench of legal aid skeletons and ancient
> coffee emanates up from what must once have been a cheaply carpeted
> floor."
> 
>> I suspect it will all come down to: how many participants
>> are willing to work on this,
> 
> While we really do need the forum before collecting participants, we
> can probably safely assume at least a smattering of mutual credit
> communities, plus Bitcoin and other digital currency people, possibly
> some financially oriented software vendors, some techier market and
> banking people, etc. Maybe some big name companies - 'social' and so
> forth - who are basically moving in to private currency accounting.
> Such people are actually around (we have been in touch with quite a
> few), it's just that many will need a neutral, focused forum to
> congregate on definable problems before coming out of the woodwork for
> procedural reasons.
> 
>> how many are willing to review,
> 
> Not to run before we walk ... I think gathering people to discuss the
> perceived needs of individual community segments and come up with some
> ideas for shared solutions (that do not sacrifice interoperability) is
> the immediate task; latter issues of formal review MAY follow.
> 
>> whether
>> there is any running code,
> 
> As above. In addition, running code has already been deemed "a tad
> excessive" earlier on this thread:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04519.html
> 
>> whether the wider community can be of help,
> 
> Certainly there are multiple parties identified who have worked in
> this direction in the past (see
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04511.html)
> and multiple parties who are working in this direction at present,
> though exclusively with narrower scope:
>  - Ripple: http://ripple-project.org/Protocol/Protocol
>  - CES (private communication, 2012): http://ces.org.za/
>  - W3C Web Payments Community Group: http://www.w3.org/community/webpayments/
> 
> One might add to this short list the tremendous number of financial
> services providers (both established and innovative) who currently
> consistently present their customers with custom protocols or APIs
> (XML, REST, SOAP, JSON RPC, HTTP; often with unique complex event
> callback and/or state-based polling mechanisms; the same based on
> weird VPNs, leased lines, client certificate SSL systems for security
> box-ticking purposes, etc.) even for extremely well trodden settlement
> problems (credit cards come to mind, as do mobile operators opening
> their consumer billing platforms to payment integration, B2B banking
> portals offered by leading banks, etc.).
> 
> Each of these entities, their vendors and clients would likely testify
> to present pains of implementation: indeed, huge numbers of libraries
> and software modules exist purely for specific-vendor-X API
> integration purposes (few of which are created - shall we say - equal,
> particularly in view of tax, fee, anti-fraud, accounting, auditing and
> other related concerns that often slip out of view during small
> scale/minimalist integrations).
> 
> As for how many might choose to actively contribute, that would be a
> forward looking statement. Some will.
> 
> In short, there's a huge amount of experience out there in the
> community to potentially focus on cost-saving, flexibility enhancing
> standardization.  People are motivated, they get it. They've done
> Euro, they've done taxes, they've done regulatory change, they've done
> protocol upgrades, they've done vendor lock in, they're looking in to
> mobile, they're seeing digital currencies. People want an interface
> that works, and doesn't need to be thrown out and re-implemented
> periodically.  The "wider community" in the non-IETF sense can thus be
> relied upon to help, though which quarters specifically will step
> forward we will only know in time.  In the IETF-internal sense of
> "wider community", when any potential for formalization of output
> approaches in the future, I'm sure people will volunteer.
> 
> But we will need a mailing list.

Actually, you don't *need* an *IETF* mailing list to discuss financial
application protocols.

I would like to note that I remain skeptical that there truly is a
community here, that there is a tractable engineering problem to be
solved, that the IETF is necessarily the right place to do work on
engineering solutions even if there is a tractable problem, or that the
proponent (I have yet to see more than one) has taken account of
previous work in this space at the IETF and why that work has not been a
wild success.

Notwithstanding, as an area director for the applications area (at least
for a few more weeks) and in consultation with Pete and Barry, I am
willing to create a list and see if a more concrete initiative gels
here. If list discussion doesn't lead anywhere, it will be easy enough
to close the list.

Walter, please provide the following information:

1. List name (please don't make it "finance" because people might think
it is an IAOC list)

2. List administrator email address(es)

3. Purpose (a *brief* description, see
http://www.ietf.org/list/nonwg.html for examples)

Thanks.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/