Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:41:11 -0800

In addition to the previously mentioned EDI and IOTP work, there was also this 
back in the late 1990s..

CyberCash Credit Card Protocol Version 0.8
file:///home/hodges/doc/IETF/rfc/rfc1898.txt

ECML v1: Field Names for E-Commerce
file:///home/hodges/doc/IETF/rfc/rfc2706.txt

ECML v1.1: Field Specifications for E-Commerce
file:///home/hodges/doc/IETF/rfc/rfc3106.txt

..and then fwiw, it's not clear what happened to these expired I-Ds..

draft-eastlake-internet-payment
draft-eastlake-universal-payment
draft-hallam-micropayment-01

Donald Eastlake and Steve Crocker were involved in the above work (they were 
apparently affiliated with CyberCash at the time). They'd likely have some 
input into this discussion (as has been noted).

A separate but related question is whether "financial-protocol" folk need 
different underlying  protocols, for transport/transfer of this particular type 
of data and notifications, than what is extant (and implemented & shipping) 
today (e.g., HTTP, TLS/SSL, SCTP, XMPP, etc.).

If not, then perhaps they might concentrate on the stuff at their "financial" 
layer and concoct "bindings" to the existing underlying stuff (eg, as we did in 
SAML & Liberty (to HTTP)) as appropriate, and they then could perhps more 
easily work on their "financial" layer whereever (eg, W3C, OASIS, SomeNew.org, 
etc).

The overall key is (as has been noted in this thread) getting a critical mass 
of subject matter experts to show up with the cycles/commitment to 
accomplishing something. So one should select a venue that such folk are most 
likely to participate in. That may or may not be the IETF (Your Mileage May Vary..)

HTH,

=JeffH

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:15:26 -0500

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:41 PM, =JeffH <[email-masked]> wrote:
> different underlying  protocols, for transport/transfer of this particular
> type of data and notifications, than what is extant (and implemented &
> shipping) today (e.g., HTTP, TLS/SSL, SCTP, XMPP, etc.).
>
> If not, then perhaps they might concentrate on the stuff at their
> "financial" layer and concoct "bindings" to the existing underlying stuff
> (eg, as we did in SAML & Liberty (to HTTP)) as appropriate, and they then
> could perhps more easily work on their "financial" layer whereever (eg, W3C,
> OASIS, SomeNew.org, etc).
>
> The overall key is (as has been noted in this thread) getting a critical
> mass of subject matter experts to show up with the cycles/commitment to
> accomplishing something. So one should select a venue that such folk are
> most likely to participate in. That may or may not be the IETF

Yes... this is exactly the sort of discussion I was looking to
generate *here*, before deciding whether it should be spun off to a
separate mailing list.  These are the sorts of questions that aren't
answered in the original request -- and, of course, can't be, yet,
until some discussion happens.

The bar for creating a new non-WG mailing list is fairly low, so the
ADs are not looking for definitive answers.  We just want a sense of
who will participate, where it's (roughly) likely to go, and how
likely it is to wind up with work for the IETF.

And it's OK if we create the mailing list and in the end the
participants decide to go elsewhere.  As I said, the bar is pretty
low.[1]  But there is a bar.

Barry

[1] But is it a pole-vault bar (high is harder) or a limbo bar (low is
harder)?  Hmmmm....