RFC 3354 INFORMATIONAL E-COMMERCE · STANDARDS

IOTP v2 requirements: Internet Open Trading Protocol Version 2 Requirements

A roadmap for extending the Internet Open Trading Protocol with modern standards

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
August 2002
AUTHORS
D. Eastlake 3rd
STREAM
IETF
RELEASED
August 2002
REPLACES
IOTP v1 messaging and signatures only
DOI
10.17487/RFC3354

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Network Working Group                                   D. Eastlake, III
Request for Comments: 3354                                      Motorola
Category: Informational                                      August 2002


                     Internet Open Trading Protocol
                         Version 2 Requirements

Status 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 (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document gives requirements for the Internet Open Trading
   Protocol (IOTP) Version 2 by describing design principles and scope
   and dividing features into those which will, may, or will not be
   included.

   Version 2 of the IOTP will extend the interoperable framework for
   Internet commerce capabilities of Version 1 while replacing the XML
   messaging and digital signature part of IOTP v1 with standards based
   mechanisms.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ...................................................2
   2. Design Principles and Scope ....................................2
   3. Requirements ...................................................2
   4. Security Considerations ........................................4
   References ........................................................4
   Authors Addresses .................................................5
   Full Copyright Statement ..........................................6

1. Introduction

   Version 2 of the Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP) will extend
   the interoperable framework for Internet commerce capabilities of
   Version 1 [RFC 2801] as described in Section 3 below.  In addition,
   it will replace the ad hoc XML messaging and digital signature [RFC
   2802] parts of IOTP v1 with standards based mechanisms [RFC 3275].

   This document gives requirements for the Internet Open Trading
   Protocol (IOTP) Version 2 by describing design principles and scope
   and dividing features into those which will, may, or will not be
   included.

2. Design Principles and Scope

   1. The specification must describe the syntax and processing
      necessary for an extension of the interoperable framework for
      Internet commerce described in IOTP V1.0 [RFC 2801].

   2. Keep changes to IOTP V1.0 to a minimum.

   3. Maintain all existing functionality of IOTP V1.0.

   4. Test all XML DTDs and/or Schemas and XML examples in the
      specification to insure that they are well-formed.

   5. Create usage/implementation guidance information, probably as a
      separate document.

   6. It should be designed to work well with other protocols such as
      ECML [RFC 3106].

   7. IOTP Version 2 should be developed as part of the broader Web
      design philosophy of decentralization, URIs, Web data, and
      modularity /layering / extensibility.  [Berners-Lee, WebData] In
      this context, this standard should take advantage of existing
      provider (and infrastructure) primitives.

3. Requirements

   IOTP Version 2 will include the following:

   1. Be a superset of IOTP Version 1.

   2. Provide for the Dynamic Definition of Trading Sequences.  I.E.,
      transactions will not be limited, as with v1, to a single payment
      and a single delivery with delivery occurring after payment.

      Instead, it will be possible to propose an arbitrary sequence of
      transaction steps.

   3. Include specification of an Offer Request Block.

   4. Support Improved Problem Resolution (extend to cover presentation
      of signed receipt to customer support party, better defined
      Customer Care role, etc.).

   5. Add provisions to indicate and handle a payment protocol not
      tunneled through IOTP.

   6. Add support for server based wallets.

   The following may be include in IOTP v2:

   1. Support Repeated/ongoing payments.  For example, a means to
      specify that a customer approval covers not only the instant
      purchase but also some limited number of future purchase with some
      total or per purchase spending limit.

   2. Enhanced Server to Server messages.  For example, a means for a
      Delivery Handler to inform a Payment Handler that goods have
      actually shipped, which may be a pre-condition for making a charge
      against a credit card.

   3. Include the ability to add both fields and attributes to existing
      trading blocks in addition to the present ability to add entirely
      new trading blocks.

   The following are out of scope for IOTP version 2:

   1. Legal or regulatory issues surrounding the implementation of the
      protocol or information systems using it.

   2. Design of an XML Messaging Layer.  Instead, whatever is or appears
      most likely to become the standard XML messaging layer will be
      used.  This includes a standard enveloping, addressing, and error
      reporting framework.

   3. Design of XML Digital Signatures.  Instead, the existing standard
      [RFC 3275] will be used.

4. Security Considerations

   As provided above, IOTP v2 will provide optional authentication via
   standards based XML Digital Signatures [RFC 3275]; however, neither
   IOTP v1 nor v2 provide a confidentiality mechanism.  Both require the
   use of secure channels such as those provided by TLS [RFC 2246] or
   IPSEC for confidentiality and depend on the security mechanisms of
   any payment system used in conjunction with them to secure payments.

References

   [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>.

   [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.

   [RFC 2801]    Burdett, D., "Internet Open Trading Protocol - IOTP
                 Version 1.0", RFC 2801, April 2000.

   [RFC 2802]    Davidson, K. and Y. Kawatsura, "Digital Signatures for
                 the v1.0 Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP)", RFC
                 2802, April 2000.

   [RFC 3106]    Eastlake, D. and T. Goldstein, "ECML v1.1: Field Names
                 for E-Commerce", RFC 3106, April 2001.

   [RFC 3275]    Eastlake, D., Reagle, J. and D. Solo, "XML-Signature
                 Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275, March 2002.

   [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/1998/REC-xml>, T.
                 Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen.

Author's 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.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  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.

AI ELI5

On this page
PROBLEMVersion 1 of the Internet Open Trading Protocol works for online commerce, but its custom XML messaging and digital signature design need updating to use standard technologies.
MECHANISMVersion 2 will be a superset of v1, replacing the ad hoc XML and digital signature parts with standards-based mechanisms while extending support for flexible transaction sequences and improved payment handling.
WHAT V2 AIMS FORIOTP v2 provides a cleaner, more standardized framework for online commerce built on proven technologies rather than custom implementations.

§1Introduction

The Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP) provides a framework for Internet commerce. Version 1, defined in RFC 2801, works by handling the interchange of transaction information between parties. However, it uses custom-designed XML messaging and digital signature mechanisms that are not standards-based.

Version 2 will extend IOTP v1 while adopting standard technologies: it will replace the ad hoc XML messaging and digital signature parts with standards-based mechanisms, particularly RFC 3275 (XML-Signature Syntax and Processing).

IOTP v1 is like a store's rulebook for online shopping. IOTP v2 will mostly follow the same rules but will use the same kinds of message envelopes and signature systems that other internet technologies use.

§2Design Principles

IOTP v2 follows several core design principles. It must describe the syntax and processing needed to extend the interoperable framework of IOTP v1. The specification will keep changes to v1 to a minimum and maintain all existing functionality. All XML DTDs and Schemas will be tested to ensure they are well-formed.

The protocol is designed to work well with other standards such as ECML (E-Commerce Markup Language). IOTP v2 should embrace the broader Web design philosophy of decentralization, URIs, Web data, and modularity rather than being a monolithic system.

IOTP v2 keeps everything that worked in v1. It is built to work with other internet standards and follows the internet's philosophy of modular, reusable pieces rather than one big system.

§3Requirements for Version 2

IOTP v2 has several required features. It must be a superset of v1, preserving all existing functionality. It will provide dynamic definition of trading sequences, meaning transactions will no longer be limited to one payment and one delivery as in v1. Instead, arbitrary sequences of transaction steps can be proposed and processed.

Additional requirements include specification of an Offer Request Block, support for improved problem resolution (such as presenting signed receipts to customer support), provisions to indicate and handle payment protocols that bypass IOTP, and support for server-based wallets. Optional features may include repeated or ongoing payments with spending limits, enhanced server-to-server messages to track shipment status, and the ability to add both fields and attributes to existing trading blocks.

IOTP v2 must do everything v1 does. It adds the ability to do more complex purchase sequences, better handling of problems, wallets stored on servers, and possibly recurring charges with limits.

§4Out of Scope

Certain areas are explicitly outside the scope of IOTP v2. Legal and regulatory issues surrounding protocol implementation are left to others. Design of an XML Messaging Layer is out of scope; instead, whatever becomes the standard XML messaging layer will be adopted. Similarly, design of XML Digital Signatures is out of scope; the specification will use the existing standard RFC 3275.

This approach keeps IOTP v2 focused on commerce semantics rather than building infrastructure that other standards handle.

IOTP v2 does not make up its own rules for sending messages or checking signatures. It will use whatever standard systems already exist for those jobs.

§5References