RE: more comments on draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-protocol-05.txt
David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com> Fri, 10 September 1999 16:01 UTC
Received: from one.eListX.com (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA12893 for <trade-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by one.eListX.com id aa29399; 10 Sep 99 11:59 EDT
Received: from one.elistx.com by one.eListX.com id aa29244; 10 Sep 99 11:25 EDT
Received: from mail.commerceone.com by one.eListX.com id aa29232; 10 Sep 99 11:25 EDT
Received: by ip5-19.5.20.172.in-addr.arpa with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <R4XGV7XY>; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:23:41 -0700
Message-ID: <123B7EB05559D311B0D900A0C9EA3D7604F24A@NEPTUNE>
From: David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
To: "'andras@metechnology.com'" <andras@metechnology.com>, ietf-trade@lists.eListX.com
Subject: RE: more comments on draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-protocol-05.txt
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:23:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Sender: ietf-trade-owner@lists.eListX.com
Precedence: bulk
X-elistx: ietf-trade
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
Andras See a few minor comments below marked with @@ David -----Original Message----- From: Andras Varga [mailto:andras@metechnology.com] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 4:10 AM To: ietf-trade@lists.eListX.com Subject: RE: more comments on draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-protocol-05.txt Please see comments inlined... > PaymtPending Payment Pending. The payment is a longer process and cannot > be completed while the Consumer is online. (For example, > Direct Debit or Bank Transfer is used for the payment which > takes several hours or days to complete.) > This is only valid if ProcessState is CompletedOk. > No recovery possible. > > Paid Payment finished successfully (as opposed to being pending). > This is only valid if ProcessState is CompletedOk. > No recovery possible. > ##IMOH I think this distinction, whilst technically correct, could be > confusing to a Consumer. Once they've completed a Payment > Exchange, they will think, for all intents and purposes, that they've > "paid". A message that says "payment pending" could cause confusion > and they might think that something has gone wrong and the payment > perhaps won't work. I prefer to leave it as it is. OTOH, if the developer > of a payment supplement wants to make the distinction then they can > include text in the StatusDesc attribute to distinguish between the two > states. Propose no change.## I accept. ---- > If the payment completion code is PaymtPending, it might be > useful NOT to return the PayReceipt component immediately in the > Payment Response Block. In this case, the Consumer could retrieve > the PayReceipt later with an Inquiry when the payment finished. I believe > this is not possible in the current version of IOTP. Opinions? > ##Correct. It's not possible to do what you suggest in the > current version of IOTP. The behaviour you suggest also does not > represent what happens in the real world. For example, if you pay > by check you get a receipt at the time you hand over the check. > The fact the check might "bounce" is handled separately. I think it > is a good idea, at least initially, to mirror real world behaviour. > Propose no change.## I accept this. Practice will show if any change is needed in IOTP. > Again 7.16.2 Payment Completion Codes: > IOTP> BadInstrument Bad instrument. There is a problem with the > IOTP> Payment Instrument being used which > IOTP> means that it is unable to be used for the payment. > > A potential error situation is that the payment amount is too small > (or too big) for the given brand/protocol. For example, credit cards > cannot be used for micropayments. Since this is not a problem with the > Payment Instrument itself, I recommend the error description > be changed to: > "The Payment Instrument cannot be used for the payment for > some reason (e.g. the credit card is invalid, or payment amount is too > small/too big for the Payment Instrument)." > An alternative would be to introduce AmountTooLarge and AmountTooSmall > error codes. > ## You can use the ValueTooSmall and ValueTooLarge error > codes for this. The Error Description can be used to fine tune the > meaning.## I accept that no change is required, with the comment that this is rather a business error (recovery is possible) and it can be covered by one of BadInstrument, InstNotValid or Unspecified. @@ ... except that what *sane* Merchant would include credit cards in a Brand List when the goods being purchased are for only a few pence. The Merchant should know in advance that it wouldn't work. IMOH I think if this problem occurs then it is an error in the way the Merchant has set up his IOTP system.@@ ---- > Comment: > Authentication Exchange can be used to communicate trading role info > between trading roles. For example, the Delivery Handler can > authenticate the Consumer to obtain the shipping address. A potential > problem is that Authentication is initiated by the Delivery Handler > not the Consumer, so I believe currently there is no way for the > Consumer to tell a changed shipping address to the Delivery Handler > unless the Delivery Handler explicitly asks for it in an Authentication > Reqeuest. Opinions? > ## This has been already discussed. See > http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/199908/msg00035.html## FYI, we figured out another way to request shipping to a different address from the Delivery Handler (by means of a new critial element). If someone is interested please write. && Yes. But changing the shipping address MUST be treated with care as it can mean that the wrong tax is being collected. For example in the US goods bought and shipped within the same state must include sales tax. Goods that are shipped out of state do not (although technically the purchases should report and pay the tax due). So, if the Delivery Handler changes the address then it could result in the Merchant being liable for additional tax that he has not received payment for.@@ Andras ------------------------------ Andras Varga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message addressed to: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/ To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the body to: ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message addressed to: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/ To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the body to: ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com
- changing the shipping address (was RE: more comme… Andras Varga
- RE: more comments on draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-p… David Burdett
- RE: more comments on draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-p… Andras Varga
- RE: more comments on draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-p… David Burdett
- more comments on draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-proto… Andras Varga