Re: Comemnt: draft-ietf-trade-ecml2-spec-07.txt
Ray Bellis <rpb@community.net.uk> Tue, 21 January 2003 10:04 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-trade-errors+ietf-trade-1104-archive+40pipe+2elists+2eelistx+2ecom@lists.elistx.com>
Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9200E046MT56@eListX.com> (original mail from rpb@community.net.uk) for ietf-trade-1104-archive@pipe.lists.elistx.com; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 05:04:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9200E016MS54@eListX.com> for ietf-trade@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 05:04:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9200E016MS53@eListX.com> for ietf-trade@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 05:04:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail02.office.community.net.uk (fwe.office.community.net.uk [195.72.161.14]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H92008GO6MRCV@eListX.com> for ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 05:04:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exim by mail.office.community.net.uk with local-virus-ok-18avG9-0005tq-00 (Exim 4.10) id 18avG9-0005tx-00; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:03:57 +0000
Received: from dhcp-4.office.community.net.uk ([10.2.3.4] helo=RPB) by mail.office.community.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18avG9-0005tq-00; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:03:57 +0000
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:03:56 +0000
From: Ray Bellis <rpb@community.net.uk>
Subject: Re: Comemnt: draft-ietf-trade-ecml2-spec-07.txt
To: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com
Cc: lauri.piikivi@nokia.com
Message-id: <003801c2c134$69469a10$0403020a@RPB>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Virus-Status: No known viruses found
X-Virus-Checker-Version: Sophos 3.65 (engine 2.10)
References: <BE474FABED33DF45A660811F24C4246C017DBD9B@ouebe003.ntc.nokia.com>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-trade-help@lists.elistx.com>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl>, <mailto:ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com?body=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl>, <mailto:ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com?body=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/>
List-Help: <http://lists.elistx.com/elists/admin.shtml>, <mailto:ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com?body=help>
List-Id: <ietf-trade.lists.elistx.com>
> Should there be a SWITCH payment card type defined, if > the card issuer number ECom_Payment_Card_IssueNumber is > for that card only? The issue number also appears on "Solo" cards, although these are much rarer than Switch cards. There's some information about Switch joining the Maestro brand here (http://www.switch.co.uk/maestro/switch_maestro1.htm). There's actually some suggestion that as part of this process the issue number will actually disappear from Switch cards. > Does the switch card system operate at all without the > issue number? I mean that if the customer can not give > the numebr to merchant in web payment, will the charging > be made. Or is the switch issue numebr needed only for > transaction processing, from merchant to processor? Our own payment processing software requires the end user to supply their card's issue number. That issue number is included in the card authorisation (APACS30) messages sent to UK acquirers. On Switch cards that don't have an issue number most UK sites (including our own) require the supply of the card's "valid from" date instead. Strangly this "valid from" information doesn't appear to be supported by APACS30, although I presume there must be some processors' systems capable of using this information. On checking our e-commerce app we do send "valid from" information to the payment services run by Netgiro, Bibit and Netbanx. I don't know what they do with the information, but this does seem to suggest that we need yet more ECML fields. May I therefore suggest? Ecom_Payment_Card_ValidFrom_Day Ecom_Payment_Card_ValidFrom_Month Ecom_Payment_Card_ValidFrom_Year Can anyone who knows better suggest whether loyalty cards might also need "valid from" fields? kind regards, Ray Bellis -- Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) - Technical Director community internet plc - ts.com Ltd Windsor House, 12 High Street, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 2PJ tel: +44 1865 856000 email: ray.bellis@community.net.uk fax: +44 1865 856001 web: http://www.community.net.uk/
- Re: Comemnt: draft-ietf-trade-ecml2-spec-07.txt Donald Eastlake 3rd
- Re: Comemnt: draft-ietf-trade-ecml2-spec-07.txt Ray Bellis
- Comemnt: draft-ietf-trade-ecml2-spec-07.txt lauri.piikivi