Re: Future of the TRADE Working Group

Vadim Fedukovich <> Sat, 27 March 2004 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> (original mail from; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:22:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> for; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:22:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <> for; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:22:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i2R6MBoS008589; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 08:22:14 +0200 (EET)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:22:11 +0800
From: Vadim Fedukovich <>
Subject: Re: Future of the TRADE Working Group
In-reply-to: <>
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <>
Cc: "''" <>
Message-id: <>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ru
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225
References: <>
List-Owner: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Help: <>, <>
List-Id: <>

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

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,

p.s. the tool mentioned is an open-source implementation
that was tested to run payment session for a well-known
production-grade wallet

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,,
> 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
>  Motorola Laboratories               1-508-786-7554 (work)
>  111 Locke Drive                     1-508-634-2066 (home)
>  Marlboro, MA 01752 USA