Re: Draft new TRADE WG Charter, two week comment period

["Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

The working group has decided not to do an XML messaging layer itself.

Among the deliverables in the proposed new charter, the one most likely
to refer to this would be the IOTP v2 requirements which should say
something about requirements for the Messaging Layer.

Thanks,
Donald

From:  David Burdett <[e-mail]>
Content-return:  allowed
Date:  Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:20:44 -0700
To:  Eastlake Donald-LDE008 <[e-mail]>,
            "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>
Message-id:  <[e-mail]>

>Donald
>
>Apologies for not being able to make the last IETF meeting. However, I think
>that work on version 2.0 of IOTP should consider use of ebXML Transport
>Routing and Packaging as meeting your first requirement for "Separation of a
>content independent Messaging Layer".
>
>ebXML stands for electronic business XML and is a joint effort between
>UN/CEFACT who are owners of the EDIFACT standard and OASIS which is a
>non-profit organization with significant SGML & XML expertise. It includes
>the development of a content independent messaging layer.
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eastlake Donald-LDE008 [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:51 PM
>To: '[e-mail]'
>Cc: Eastlake Donald-LDE008
>Subject: Draft new TRADE WG Charter, two week comment period
>
>
>Hi,
>
>Here is the draft charter that was presented in Pittsburgh with some minor
>edits.  I would like to send this in to our Area Director soon.  Please try
>to get any comments or suggestions to me or posted to the list within two
>weeks.
>
>Thanks,
>Donald
>
>
>Chair: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[e-mail]>
>Applications Area Advisor: Patrik Faltstrom
>
>Mailing Lists:
>	General Discussion:[e-mail] 
>	To Subscribe: [e-mail]
>	In Body: (un)subscribe
>	Archive: http://www.eListX.com/archives/ietf-trade 
>
>The Internet Open Trading Protocol is an interoperable framework
>for Internet commerce. It is optimized for the case where the
>buyer and the merchant do not have a prior acquaintance and is
>payment system independent. It can encapsulate and support payment
>systems such as SET, Mondex, secure channel card payment,
>GeldKarte, etc. IOTP is able to handle cases where such merchant
>roles as the shopping site, the payment handler, the deliverer of
>goods or services, and the provider of customer support are
>performed by different Internet sites.
>
>The working group will document interoperability experience with
>IOTP version 1 (which has been published as an Informational RFC)
>and develop the requirements for IOTP version 2. Selection of
>items for inclusion in version requirements 2 is to be from the
>following: 
> - Separation of a content independent Messaging Layer 
> - Dynamic Definition of Trading Sequences 
> - Offer Request Block 
> - Improved Problem Resolution (extend to cover presentation of
> 	signed receipt to customer support party, etc.)
> - Server to Server messages
> - Standardized XML Digital Signatures based on output from
> 	the XMLDSIG working group
> 
>The following is out of scope for IOTP version 2:
> - legal or regulatory issues surrounding the implementation of
> 	the protocol or information systems using it.
> - specification of an XML Messaging Layer
>
>The working group will specify requirements for Digital-Rights
>Trading.
>
>The working group will specify requirements for and then a syntax
>and processing model of ECML (Electronic Commerce Modeling
>Language) V2.
>
>Milestones
>
>00 Sep  Internet Draft publication
>	Secure Channel Credit/Debit
>
>00 Sep  Working Group Last Call
>	SET Supplement
>	Architecture and Payment API
>	
>00 Oct  Submit to IESG
>	SET Supplement (Informational)
>	Architecture and Payment API (Informational)
>
>00 Nov  Internet Draft publication
>	IOTP V2.0 Requirements
>	ECML V2.0 Requirements
>
>00 Nov  Submit to IESG
>	Secure Channel Credit/Debit (Proposed Standard?)
>	"Digital Rights" Trading Requirements (Informational)
>
>00 Dec  Internet Draft publication
>	IOTP V2.0 Specification
>	ECML V2.0 Specification
>
>00 Dec  Submit to IESG
>	ECML V2.0 Requirements (Informational)
>
>01 Jan  Submit to IESG
>	IOTP V2.0 Requirements (Informational)
>
>01 Feb  Submit to IESG
>	ECML V2.0 Specification (Proposed Standard)
>
>01 Mar  Submit to IESG
>	IOTP V2.0 Specification  (Proposed Standard)