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

[Ko Fujimura <[e-mail]>]

Eastlake Donald-LDE008 wrote:
...
> 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

Coordination between IOTP and ECML may be an item should be considered.
I think that IOTP version 2 should specify the position of ECML version 2.
How do you think? 

> 
> 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.

I'm sorry for not resolving the issue of the document title.
How about "Requirements for Generic Rights Trading"?

Regards,

Ko Fujimura