Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI scheme, draft 01

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Fri, 13 April 2018 05:13 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
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 3D21512D72F for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=adobe.com
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 Du6z7ul7XDRj for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0075.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FD23124239 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adobe.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=vUNBEe7mtRLtvEjHmcCoub1//FLfqCG6+CrPh/SsKe8=; b=fWu36HQdYQg4IWZHa328oR8ZjT3EFDeFk3i0f0G8NGoVBrB6A+gnPLV4+G8ZuZQoSmofdeT5149fqVjBfysS/rxUEz+GrbSIOszE6O6wxRZpXB19OCBkELDoST8K0Yhl/dSIBtKhxW353PjiHTeuuqfeZ2nVpQlNOvXDhXq48QE=
Received: from DM5PR0201MB3461.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.167.105.155) by DM5PR0201MB3576.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.167.106.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.675.13; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 05:13:15 +0000
Received: from DM5PR0201MB3461.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d16e:f50f:9c0c:8b1d]) by DM5PR0201MB3461.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d16e:f50f:9c0c:8b1d%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0675.012; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 05:13:15 +0000
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: Florian Dold <florian.dold@inria.fr>
CC: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI scheme, draft 01
Thread-Index: AQHT0R2D17Lfb5Yg30qFXmOB4tRl6qP7L8QAgAA8d4CAAFAvMIAAJyOAgAI4+vCAAAxJ+w==
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 05:13:15 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR0201MB3461EDB8DC681DFE3C106F4AC3B30@DM5PR0201MB3461.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <496f8300-4df8-2ca9-751b-e7b481203175@inria.fr> <5ACDBCFE.4030706@ninebynine.org> <1257488c-6d8a-a915-57e7-27f035aee991@inria.fr> <DM5PR0201MB346194A8C9D866A6CD4B49BEC3BD0@DM5PR0201MB3461.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>, <fd1dcfd1-2855-446f-a46c-5c441e221b87@inria.fr>, <DM5PR0201MB3461594B753258669489BC5CC3B30@DM5PR0201MB3461.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR0201MB3461594B753258669489BC5CC3B30@DM5PR0201MB3461.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=masinter@adobe.com;
x-originating-ip: [24.6.174.39]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM5PR0201MB3576; 7:BLv9CMFgh/eJVlgeSjKSXESEn2GgoT+vKsCPU6JZzbhku5Ou6b8FKDAjKPUd1KrOqjUEIxUW3IgHldbxYDfBdRUTpTuCToNfB9rKyD4MfBhSe1zq96Qsob6uwxhbTeH9Xa/ZOSh4iiOkXkN8umYzfL3Yl3cimrIh3yzEx9BwWWgtuWPH6VtqCnhON7VElzupgTyrOoGOd+1dkQL82VJLzhlIosI/tYU6+dvqLknofXsYAdz3Od4WaE0M50BPyJ1q
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(48565401081)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR0201MB3576;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR0201MB3576:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR0201MB3576262AE89BE2547B1912E1C3B30@DM5PR0201MB3576.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(28532068793085)(788757137089)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(61425038)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(3231232)(944501327)(52105095)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038)(6041310)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:DM5PR0201MB3576; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM5PR0201MB3576;
x-forefront-prvs: 0641678E68
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(376002)(366004)(39860400002)(39380400002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(25786009)(55016002)(8936002)(6306002)(54896002)(236005)(316002)(9686003)(5660300001)(6116002)(3846002)(53936002)(478600001)(93886005)(3660700001)(2906002)(8990500004)(10090500001)(81166006)(81156014)(68736007)(8676002)(6916009)(3280700002)(102836004)(2900100001)(446003)(33656002)(59450400001)(6506007)(186003)(26005)(476003)(86362001)(11346002)(229853002)(99286004)(606006)(76176011)(966005)(74316002)(97736004)(105586002)(6246003)(486006)(106356001)(53386004)(7696005)(4326008)(6436002)(14454004)(66066001)(2940100002)(7736002)(5250100002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR0201MB3576; H:DM5PR0201MB3461.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: adobe.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: R9XELNi8hs8UYAyGa94Ciqu/pS4Ub4acpnkxHTX0x0DhJzJfI9Aa4MnAbMEXtuZbOvZe35XoIf6vE+Ef/lrdCdvo3xDfjcvFsv69c+3uh7pKinlAfVkZghFGafi6uPGhSTI0jkpC//7+yLxNM4tTiJ1MovHuksyL6OleBFDTj0RDvdB8SnO0a02nNuGBtd1M
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR0201MB3461EDB8DC681DFE3C106F4AC3B30DM5PR0201MB3461_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: b5365f20-908d-462b-74c0-08d5a0fd42d9
X-OriginatorOrg: adobe.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b5365f20-908d-462b-74c0-08d5a0fd42d9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Apr 2018 05:13:15.0416 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: fa7b1b5a-7b34-4387-94ae-d2c178decee1
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR0201MB3576
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/ElLjl0eiuJPyjXFoC-EqxBsoE0Y>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 05:13:20 -0000

Sorry, keyboarding problem


  *   I am aware of the work done by the W3C's Web Payments Working Group, and
payto is orthogonal/complementary to these specifications.

The specs may be complementary but I think the drafts should coordinate; your messages pointed out the areas of overlap.

WebPayments is far along in implementation, testing and deployment.



  *   There is nothing in these two existing specifications [web payment drafts]  that would provide
or replace the intended usage of payto URIs, which is to uniformly
address destinations for payments (and optionally some parameters of the
payment such as the amount, sender's name or processing instructions)
across different payment systems.

https://www.thepaypers.com/cross-border-ecommerce has an interesting survey of payment methods around the world. Just sampling the Preferred Payment Methods and Payment Service Providers gives some indication of the complexity. Each payment processor has a complex API for invoking a payment of which the payto URI seems to want to supply some of the parameters? You would have to map your components to each.

I think the I18N issues shouldn’t be ignored, especially for things like names of users.

Finally, I think it’s a mistake to use // or / in URIs that are not hierarchical, and to use //  / around something that isn’t a host name.

Larry
--
http://LarryMasinter.net