Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                        D. EastlakeRequest for Comments: 3505                                      MotorolaCategory: Informational                                       March 2003Electronic Commerce Modeling Language (ECML):Version 2 RequirementsStatus of this Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this   memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.Abstract   This document lists the design principles, scope, and requirements   for the Electronic Commerce Modeling Language (ECML) version 2   specification.  It includes requirements as they relate to Extensible   Markup Language (XML) syntax, data model, format, and payment   processing.Table of Contents1. Introduction....................................................21.1 Relationship to Other Standards.............................22. Design Principles and Scope.....................................23. Requirements....................................................33.1 Payment Processing Elements.................................33.2 Payment Processing Types....................................33.3 XML Data Model and Syntax...................................43.4 Implementation..............................................43.5 Detailed Requests...........................................44. Security Considerations.........................................55. References......................................................56. Acknowledgments.................................................67. Authors' Addresses..............................................78. Full Copyright Statement........................................8Eastlake                     Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 3505                 ECML: v2 Requirements                March 20031. Introduction   ECML Version 2.0 will describe the syntax of a class of data objects   called Payment Processing Objects.  This will involve the development   of a hierarchically organized set of data elements and an XML syntax   for payment transaction information for both electronic wallets and   Business to Business (B2B) payment types such as credit card,   electronic check, line of credit, ACH (Automated Clearing House,)   Mobile Phone Payments, and PDA Payments.   This document lists the design principles, scope, and requirements   over three things: (1) the scope of work available to the WG, (2) the   ECML version 2 specification, and (3) applications that implement the   specification.  It includes requirements as they relate to the   payment element syntax, data model, format, implementation, and   external requirements.  Those things that are required are designated   as "must", those things that are optional are designated by "may",   those things that are optional but recommended are designated as   "should".1.1 Relationship to Other Standards   The set of fields documented herein was started by the ECML Alliance   [ECML] which developed the North American / HTML form field oriented   Versions 1 and 1.1 of ECML [RFC 3106].  Control and development of   future versions of the standard has been transferred to the IETF.   The ECML Version 1 fields were initially derived from and are   consistent with the W3C P3P base data schema [P3P BASE].  Version 2   extends the fields provided to encompass [P3P ECOM] and selected   additional fields from [ISO 8583], [JCM], or other sources.   ECML Version 2.0 is not a replacement or alternative to TLS [RFC   2246], SET [SET], EMV [EMV], XML [XML], or IOTP [RFC 2801].  These   are important standards that provide functionality such as   confidentiality, non-repudiated transactions, automatic payment   scheme selection, and smart card support.2. Design Principles and Scope   1. The specification must describe the fields necessary to process a      payment between a consumer and merchant or between two businesses,      describing the XML syntax and content in particular.   2. Keep the addition of fields beyond those in ECML v1.1 [RFC 3106]      to a minimum.Eastlake                     Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 3505                 ECML: v2 Requirements                March 2003   3. Maintain all existing functionality from ECML v1.1.  In essence,      ECML v2 should be a superset of ECML v1.1.   4. Increase the flexibility of the standard to include other forms of      payments.  These include ACH, Mobile Phone, PDA, Purchasing Card      and electronic check.  See [P3P ECOM, JCM], etc.   5. Allow for use of a common and uniform DTD with back-end payment      systems such as Enterprise Resource Provision (ERP), Card Line      Item Detail (LID) Level II & Level III, etc.   6. Allow for use of the standard with Business to Business (B2B)      payment vehicles, such as B2B Wallets, Marketplaces, etc.   7. Create a usage/implementation guide section of the specification      to cover additional use cases for functionality included.   8. ECML version 2 may include the concept of an offer.   9. ECML version 2 should be developed as part of the broader Web      design philosophy of decentralization, URIs, Web data, modularity      /layering / extensibility, and assertions as statements about      statements.  [Berners-Lee, WebData, XML, XML Name] In this      context, this standard should take advantage of existing provider      (and infrastructure) primitives.3. Requirements   ECML v2 must cover the data types and other requirements enumerated   in this section.  It should provide for asserting and querying   relevant element values.3.1 Payment Processing Elements      1. Cost      2. Receipt      3. Currency      4. Card      5. Payment      6. Bank/Telco3.2 Payment Processing Types      1. All current Processing types for ECML 1.1 [RFC 3106].      2. Automated Clearing house [ACH]      3. Electronic check [eCheck]      4. Mobile phone payments      5. PDA paymentsEastlake                     Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 3505                 ECML: v2 Requirements                March 20033.3 XML Data Model and Syntax   1. A well-formed DTD and possibly schema need to be developed to      include new fields in this standard.   2. A W3C Note may be drafted to document changes from [W3C ECOM].3.4 Implementation   1. The ECML version 2 specification should meet the requirements of      the following applications:      a. Internet Open Trading Protocol v1.0 [IOTP]      b. Check against representative ACH, electronic check, and Mobile         Phone payment setup.   2. Test all XML DTDs, schemas and XML examples included the      specification to insure that they are well-formed XML.   3. Compare completeness against (in accordance with standard's      goals:)      1. ECML v1.1 [RFC 3106]      2. Using P3P for E-Commerce [P3P NOTE]      3. Financial transaction card originated messages [ISO 8583]      4. ebXML3.5 Detailed Requests   The following are specific comments received on claimed deficiencies   in ECML v1.1 and should all be considered for possible inclusion in   ECML v2.   1. Increase Last Name field minimum required support to at least 22      characters.   2. Improved Internationalization support.   3. Longer minimum supported telephone number and email fields.   4. Provide a "translation field" which would specify a mapping      between existing fields and ECML specified fields.  The addition      of such a field in ECML v2 (which would normally be hidden when      presented in HTML) would permit ECML support with no change to      existing fields or code.  ECML code could fill in existing fields      based on the ECML field they map to.Eastlake                     Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 3505                 ECML: v2 Requirements                March 20034. Security Considerations   Many ECML fields contain sensitive private information.  ECML is   dependent upon:   - the security of the transmission infrastructure used to send such     private information   - the security of applications which store or release such sensitive     information.   ECML need not add any security mechanisms to this infrastructure or   these applications.  The ECML v2 specification must include adequate   warnings and suggested courses of action to protect this information.5. References   [ACH]         Automated Clearing House <http://www.nacha.org>   [Berners-Lee] "Axioms of Web Architecture: URIs",                 <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html>, "Web                 Architecture from 50,000 feet",                 <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html>   [eCheck]      Electronic Check <http://www.echeck.org>   [ECML]        Electronic Commerce Modeling Language, The ECML                 Alliance, <http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/ecml.html>.   [HTML]        "HTML 3.2 Reference Specification", Hyper Text Markup                 Language, <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32.html>, D.                 Raggett, January 1997.   [ISO 8583]    "Financial transaction card originated messages --                 Interchange message specifications", International                 Standards Organization, 1993.   [JCM]         "Java Commerce Messages", Sun Microsystems, IBM, April                 1998.   [EMV]         The EuroCard, MasterCard, Visa chip card protocol                 standard.  <http://www.emvco.org>   [RFC 2026]    Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --                 Revision 3",BCP 9,RFC 2026, October 1996.   [RFC 2246]    Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol: Version                 1.0",RFC 2246, January 1999.Eastlake                     Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 3505                 ECML: v2 Requirements                March 2003   [RFC 2801]    "Internet Open Trading Protocol - IOTP Version 1.0", D.                 Burdett, April 2000.   [RFC 3106]    Eastlake, D. and T. Goldstein, "ECML v1.1: Field Names                 for E-Commerce",RFC 3106, April 2001.   [P3P BASE]    "The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0 (P3P1.0)                 Specification", L. Cranor, M. Langheinrich, M.                 Marchiori, M. Presler-Marshall, J. Reagle, December                 2000, <http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-P3P/basedata.html>.   [P3P ECOM]    "Using P3P for E-Commerce", J. Coco, S. Klein, D.                 Schutzer, S. Yen, A. Slater, November 1999,                 <http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P-for-ecommerce>.   [SET]         "Secure Electronic Transaction",                 <http://www.setco.org/set_specifications.html>.   [WebData]     "Web Architecture: Describing and Exchanging Data",                 <http://www.w3.org/1999/04/WebData>   [XML]         "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second                 Edition)", <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml>, T. Bray, J.                 Paoli, C.  M.  Sperberg-McQueen.   [XML Name]    "Namespaces in XML", Tim Bray, Dave Hollander, Andrew                 Layman, 14 January 1999.                 <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names>6. Acknowledgements   Jon W. Parsons and David Shepherd contributed substantially to this   document.Eastlake                     Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 3505                 ECML: v2 Requirements                March 20037. Authors' Addresses   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   Motorola   155 Beaver Street   Milford, MA 01757 USA   Phone:  +1-508-851-8280 (w)           +1-508-634-2066 (h)   EMail:  Donald.Eastlake@motorola.comEastlake                     Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 3505                 ECML: v2 Requirements                March 20038.  Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than   English.   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Eastlake                     Informational                      [Page 8]