[Uri-review] Review request for payto URI scheme, draft 01
Florian Dold <florian.dold@inria.fr> Tue, 10 April 2018 22:44 UTC
Return-Path: <florian.dold@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEDA12421A for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LOTTO_DEPT=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p9kWcrvYkqQD for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98F0812D890 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,433,1517871600"; d="scan'208";a="322213104"
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.43.30]) ([37.173.123.80]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 11 Apr 2018 00:44:29 +0200
From: Florian Dold <florian.dold@inria.fr>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=florian.dold@inria.fr; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBFLwJVABCAC10yX1gNFICGMqqrNrVxSu5RcxRJRrpkqQ5k5X8aOrbL3zjjRNQwV0FR5Y paPR8NLh4FkeAxk8OrkIuNzLPZwcZxhahZx3+IMo/WQldeCHIh7/DSz76jIGzcWSQiP8nJeT rqKBjGiv7mbGFfLfnLjYe4qtJspoZD3DC/F8K100nURckSkog49EZIkOePGhTp2g/EydPJU9 xXnBVsjhXiP2R4fhVqBDC6oi+/9vsycEAy1CyKzuXFaMoskVg1+DtV2JUX6bU+my4LRShrwQ XM7welwTDgetXxNkzOvI59nhTUIklQIhhmjoE+NZ2wIdtLrs/y66cicLFXdkm6EYCKzFABEB AAHNGkZsb3JpYW4gRG9sZCA8ZmxvQGRvbGQubWU+wsCOBBMBCAA4FiEExyDYmq52EZu3XeRZ 0uTwDynQKksFAllF5oUCGwMFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ0uTwDynQKkuC Igf/cDySMmnM6HPqO4yrF30al6Z6lsW3XrcnGnEU+vVgCqvDllpvtM/zskxpvDwSb+gpbFid HoBYDoa15oMh6RWufeXJkQ7Iob6nbX+reD4Z8bkn16Q51nfXIMupj+DGj2cFRMlku2xzbD90 RWPp9Q8aR+vkXHCWbZxooCnmghz4V5VGdmgyYGZ21B1zNjUelynrLZChLNQFZXOxaV1eHVdC pGsWSupgLU10PCnfYoNEBaffSLorFOfVPuMxghYefrLY2hvslk6gDpOkockcJYz2b1WsprMU s/HUVbWA6HcvZoKgQ5sDv1Ot4A04CHMd8U/MLBQ9/H4Lkr+JJbBRWgLwt87ATQRS8CVQAQgA 1CFraC8IOniXUhWaOfUVVjMPpb661WWClfxUcHgMMj7n9vjVbT+6sfT/qoudIJbDswaucz0G dyeZH004PQtZphFFgupEAYKTfP5dt0AXeAPWYbLvKDKHCUzSweQ8dB9l05ab5r6LE1YSyUfg O+vf2JY35oGS/p7heeMuMCYDG9FK9+Ay32vXnBiFmZB77yVBmi2ERtwECBhx4gWp4VuX/MaL 6jABypo1SiRTSO0ZlB5NZHJeyopfE+DCx+YKuLkhvfHM9/GwYh3I18iv5Un623Fo2XmsF3gr 4kKkY5FcnFsmmtdAMlAjfDCWFu+e95PRVjFQ+6dQk77XZBKWDpaapwARAQABwsBfBBgBAgAJ BQJS8CVQAhsMAAoJENLk8A8p0CpL9lAH/1hgJ9Vay7tKDOxxWzQQ4HZ+Ej5gUAIFBlLtdrMv e7JT2KON2x+NYu1MxiPK3jfiIhVSiappJi4l2Uue2b4+Ko5W4TeRsyvJnm2HcxZxwCGvnnH6 uk/w0rYHLJBoaZEEpgOUXz++ttG4UJujaobRExSk41u/EEEWFRC0oQpH+g2wNTEujIyY2K7a RlMfm3ztjqEqrcm9PcS5pXe/cW+jRe8PmiQtVbeaxRzTqwjAOMoMQ0ws9SXdkDtXo3QxpD7s X/oYatZE2oxLd21j0o3zr4vBeO4o8VM+SJUgE0RQFbSRbEzlVsUVfRFcZJDuXfLwy5OY0l/1 GyrC8fvp7XUruTM=
To: uri-review@ietf.org
Cc: Christian Grothoff <christian.grothoff@bfh.ch>
Message-ID: <496f8300-4df8-2ca9-751b-e7b481203175@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:44:28 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/D_IeQiXnWzT53dCPCh13zXR6LC4>
Subject: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI scheme, draft 01
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uri-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 22:44:35 -0000
Dear all, I've submitted a new version of the payto URI scheme draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dold-payto/ The goal of payto:// is to designate payment methods, similar in spirit to how one would designate electronic mail addresses with the mailto URI scheme. Here are the responses and major changes from feedback to the previous draft that was posted here for review quite some time ago: Thanks to a suggestion from Eric Wilde, payment methods are now to be managed in an IANA registry instead of a fixed list within the specification. I do not think that currency and amount should be specified in a separate option. Separating them would make it look like a payto URI which only specifies the "amount" option but not the "currency" option is meaningful. Since many payment systems support multiple currencies, the notion of wanting to pay "100" without a currency to some account creates ambiguity and can be confusing. One might argue though that it's possible to require a "currency" option to be present if an "amount" is specified, which simplifies parsing for consumers of these URIs, but this also makes them longer and arguably less readable. I'd appreciate more feedback here. David Nicol asked a while back on this list whether we should support multiple currencies or even a notion of shopping carts. Since payto:// is intended to address existing payment methods, it is unlikely that these concepts translate well to them. Thus I think that the specification should address the lowest common denominator of payment systems. That is also the reason for having a free form "message" field (intended to be read by humans) that might be changed (encoding / letter substitution, upper/lower case) and a more limited "instruction" field that must be preserved verbatim. These kinds of limitations are common. These higher level aspects of payments (related to cart management, shipping addresses, payment method selection and so on) are also already being addressed by other standards, such as the W3C's Web Payment Working group. Best regards, Florian
- [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI scheme,… Florian Dold
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Florian Dold
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Adrian Hope-Bailie
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Larry Masinter
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Florian Dold
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Florian Dold
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Florian Dold
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Larry Masinter
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Larry Masinter
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Florian Dold
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Larry Masinter
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Florian Dold
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Larry Masinter
- Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI sch… Florian Dold