Network Working Group D. Eastlake
Request for Comments: 3505 Motorola
Category: Informational March 2003
Electronic Commerce Modeling Language (ECML):
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 (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 Contents
1. Introduction.................................................... 2
1.1 Relationship to Other Standards............................. 2
2. Design Principles and Scope..................................... 2
3. Requirements.................................................... 3
3.1 Payment Processing Elements................................. 3
3.2 Payment Processing Types.................................... 3
3.3 XML Data Model and Syntax................................... 4
3.4 Implementation.............................................. 4
3.5 Detailed Requests........................................... 4
4. Security Considerations......................................... 5
5. References...................................................... 5
6. Acknowledgments................................................. 6
7. Authors' Addresses.............................................. 7
8. Full Copyright Statement........................................ 8
Eastlake Informational [Page 1]
RFC 3505 ECML: v2 Requirements March 2003
1. 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/Telco
3.2 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 payments
Eastlake Informational [Page 3]
RFC 3505 ECML: v2 Requirements March 2003
3.3 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. ebXML
3.5 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 2003
4. 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 2003
7. 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.com
Eastlake Informational [Page 7]
RFC 3505 ECML: v2 Requirements March 2003
8. 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]
|
