IOTP implementation at Brokat -- was RE: IOTP Implementations - Who's on First?

[Andras Varga <[e-mail]>]

RE: IOTP Implementations - Who's on First?At Brokat Infosystems (more exactly, at MeTechnology - a
Brokat company,
we have implemented an IOTP system as part of a research project.

The Merchant and the Payment Handler are based on Twister, Brokat's
e-services platform (http://www.brokat.com/us/twister/index.html).

The wallet is a Java applet, with a highly customizable Swing-based user interface.
It can be started by the shop either by MIME-type or embedded in a HTML page.
The wallet does address and payment instrument management; transactions are stored
in a transaction log and can be examined or resumed any time later. The wallet
is multi-user,  user profiles and transactions are stored encrypted on the hard disk.

For a start, we implemented Virtual Customer Card payments (a prepaid scheme).

The system uses IOTP 1.0 messages, but we also defined Server-to-Server messages
so that the Payment Handler can notify the Merchant about the progress of the payment.
These messages can be used as an alternative to the explicit (Consumer-initiated) delivery
requests.

If you are interested in further details, please write.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andras Varga          MeTechnology - A Brokat Company
[e-mail]

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Smith, Chris [mailto:[e-mail]]
  Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 11:10 PM
  To: 'IOTP Group'
  Subject: RE: IOTP Implementations - Who's on First?




  Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

  I've had a request to bundle up the responses I received and forward them
  to the list. I won't do that. I won't presume to know that what someone
  sends me individually can be repeated on the open list.

  The intent is that individuals will respond *on the list*.

  These is one point I will draw from viewing several items. IOTP uses
  the concept of Roles to define 'who does what' during a transaction.
  However, nothing limits these roles to being occupied only for a
  B2C transaction. B2B uses the same roles, so - IOTP could certainly
  be used as part of B2B commerce solution. Don't think that just because
  you are *not* doing B2C that we aren't interested in what you might
  have to say.

  In addition - if you wish to add your voice to that of the
  interested audience, that too is welcome.

  ------------------------------------------------------------
   Chris Smith                                +1.416.348.6090
   Royal Bank                       [e-mail]

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Smith, Chris
  > Sent: January 18, 2000 02:28 PM
  > To: IOTP Group
  > Subject: IOTP Implementations - Who's on First?
  >
  > At some point, those of working on IOTP will need to
  > consider testing interoperability. Right now, I know of only
  > 2 (or maybe 3) groups actively working on IOTP components.
  >
  > For those who are doing so in anything remotely resembling
  > a corporate environment, it helps immensely if we can say,
  > with some evidence, how many different groups are involved.
  >
  > I realize that some people will want to be circumspect about
  > their plans. However, we can all help each other if we can
  > speak up to indicate that some implementation work is
  > planned or underway.
  >
  > Longer term, if IOTP is to move towards an IETF standard,
  > we would have to demonstrate interoperability of the
  > independent implementations. We might as well get started
  > on thinking about this, too.
  >
  > To get this started - from my point of view:
  >
  > Royal Bank (of Canada) has a production IOTP implementation
  > of Withdrawal and Deposit of Mondex value. We built both an
  > IOTP server and a Windows client. It is in use, in
  > production, by customers of the bank.
  >
  > ------------------------------------------------------------
  >  Chris Smith                                +1.416.348.6090
  >  Royal Bank                       [e-mail]