Subject: RE: Spec Changes from IOTP Workshop at CyberCash Reston, 9-11 September 1998

From: Andrew Drapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:16:42 +0900

Yoshiaki wrote:
>In current Payment APIs, Payment Bridge receives only the PackagedData
>by the OAC, not the Component.The contents of the PayReceipt Component
>are written by the Payment Bridge. Therefore an ElRef attribute can
>not be used in the payment receipt data because the Payment Bridge
>does not know the ID of the Components.

To which David Responded:
>>> I'm not sure I understand this. Can we discuss in the conference call 
on
24th. David<<<

OK, let me see if I can explain this.  The Message flow would look something 
like this:

OTP Client
    |         sends Payment Component (1)
PH OTP software
    |         sends Packaged Data (1)
Payment Bridge
    |         sends Packaged Data  (2)
PH OTP software
    |         sends Payment Component (2)
OTP Client

The Packaged Data (2) contains the Pay Receipt component, which is created 
by the Payment Bridge software.  When the PH OTP software forwards the 
packaged content to the Payment Bridge, it does not send any of the OTP 
message outside of the packaged content.  The labeling of which component is 
which is in the OTP part of the message.  The Payment Bridge itself never 
receives this information.  So, when it generates the Pay Receipt, it does 
not know what components to reference.  Is that clearer?

--
Andrew Drapp
[email-masked]
Hitachi Systems Development Laboratory
1099 Ozenji, Asao, Kawasaki, 215-0014 JAPAN
TEL:+81-44-966-9111   FAX:+81-44-966-1796
Fingerprint: 84D8 3D19 018E 9385 6581  0081 C89C D2AD F06A 565F

-----Original Message-----
From:	David Burdett [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Wednesday, September 23, 1998 4:33 PM
To:	'Yoshiaki KAWATSURA'
Cc:	[email-masked]'
Subject:	RE: Spec Changes from IOTP Workshop at CyberCash Reston, 9-11 
September 1998

See comments below.

David

>----------
>From: 	Yoshiaki KAWATSURA[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	17 September 1998 12:37
>To: 	David Burdett
>Cc: 	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: 	Re: Spec Changes from IOTP Workshop at CyberCash Reston, 9-11
>September 1998
>
>David,
>My comment is below(included the another issue.)
>>>>>> Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:25:08 +0100,
>	David Burdett <[email-masked]> said:
>> 4)	There was discussion about the "PackagedContent" of the Pay Receipt
>> Component. This arose because the sub-group which was considering how
>> SET can be encapsulated within OTP had decided to leave this content
>> "empty" since receipt information was contained in the SET messages
>> themselves.
>>
>> 	Now the definition of the Pay Receipt Component says that it is
>> designed to prove, after the payment is complete, that the payment had
>> occurred ***independently of the purchase***. An analogy is that it is
>> the equivalent of the typically yellow (in the US) slip produced by
>> real world credit card terminals which the customer may retain as
>> evidence of the payment. This slip does not usually contain any
>> identification of what goods were purchased. If the SET protocol when
>> encapsulated within OTP did not retain these messages then it would be
>> the equivalent of forcing the Consumer to always "throw away the
>> credit card slip". However there was reluctance to copy the SET
>> messages within the Pay Receipt Component since they could be several
>> Kb in length.
>>
>> 	The proposed solution to this problem is to change the Pay Receipt
>> Component so that it contains :
>> a)	the payment receipt data in its PackagedContent, and/or
>> b)	a new ElRef attribute, that contains references to other Components
>> (potentially including Pay Scheme Components) which together make up
>> the receipt. Note that:
>
>In current Payment APIs, Payment Bridge receives only the PackagedData
>by the OAC, not the Component.The contents of the PayReceipt Component
>are written by the Payment Bridge. Therefore an ElRef attribute can
>not be used in the payment receipt data because the Payment Bridge
>does not know the ID of the Components.
>>> I'm not sure I understand this. Can we discuss in the conference call 
on
24th. David<<<
>
>--
>Another Issue:
>In the TpoBlk, ErrorNetLocn is listed twice, once in the
>ProtocolOptions component and once in the Org component.  Should one
>of them be deleted?  Since each trading role has its own ErrorNetLocn,
>it makes since to leave it in the Org component.  If we delete it from
>the ProtocolOptions component, then we should probably move the
>CancelNetLocn element to the Org component as well.
>>>Agreed<<<
>
>----
>Yoshiaki Kawatsura : E-mail [email-masked]
> Business & Information Systems Development Devision, Hitachi,Ltd.
> Voice: +81-45-948-1418(direct) Fax: +81-45-948-1421
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Message addressed to: [email-masked]
>Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
>To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
>body to: [email-masked]
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mondex International Limited
47-53 Cannon Street, London  EC4M 5SQ
England
Registered No: 3122085, England

Telephone No: +44 (0)171 557 5000
Web Site: http://www.mondex.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message addressed to: [email-masked]
Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
body to: [email-masked]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message addressed to: [email-masked]
Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
body to: [email-masked]

---

From: Yoshiaki KAWATSURA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:00:02 +0900 (JST)

I revised some points of Andrew's comment. See below, please

----
Yoshiaki Kawatsura : E-mail [email-masked]
 Business & Information Systems Development Devision, Hitachi,Ltd.
 Voice: +81-45-948-1418(direct) Fax: +81-45-948-1421

>>>>> Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:16:42 +0900,
	Andrew Drapp <[email-masked]> said:

on
24th. David<<<

OTP Client(Consumer)
    |         sends PaySchemeData Component (1)
PH OTP software(OAC)
    |         sends Packaged Data (1)
Payment Bridge
    |         sends Packaged Data  (2)
PH OTP software(OAC)
    |         sends PayReceipt Component (2)
OTP Client(Consumer)

The Packaged Data (2) contains the Payment Scheme Specific Receipt
, which is created by the Payment Bridge software.  When the
PH OTP Software(OAC) forwards the packaged content to the Payment Bridge,
it does not send any of the OTP message outside of the packaged
content.  The labeling (ID) of which component is which is in the OTP part
of the message.  The Payment Bridge itself never receives this
information.  So, when it generates the Pay Receipt, it does not know
what components to reference.  Is that clearer?

-----Original Message-----
From:	David Burdett [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Wednesday, September 23, 1998 4:33 PM
To:	'Yoshiaki KAWATSURA'
Cc:	[email-masked]'
Subject:	RE: Spec Changes from IOTP Workshop at CyberCash Reston, 9-11 
September 1998

See comments below.

David

on
24th. David<<<