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:  [email protected]









































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]