ietf-trade message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-trade Home]


Subject: RE: FW: Authorization before OTP


I agree with Don. This is a definite for version 2.0.

David

>----------
>From: 	Donald E. Eastlake 3rd[SMTP:dee3@torque.pothole.com]
>Sent: 	02 October 1998 22:26
>To: 	Smith, Chris
>Cc: 	'ietf-trade@lists.eListX.com'
>Subject: 	Re: FW: Authorization before OTP 
>
>I think there are a lot of good ideas below but they seem much more
>appropriate
>for version 2.0.
>
>Thanks,
>Donald
>
>From:  "Smith, Chris" <CHRIS.SMITH@royalbank.com>
>To:  "'ietf-trade@lists.eListX.com'" <ietf-trade@lists.eListX.com>
>Date:  Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:42:00 -0400
>Message-ID:   <9809241647.aa13526@one.eListX.com>
>Sender:  ietf-trade-owner@lists.eListX.com
>X-elistx:  ietf-trade
>
>>
>>Discussions like this make me think that an Authentication Exchange should 
>>be allowed to become as fully complex as Payment Exchange IN THE SENSE THAT 
>>there may be multiple round trips, and more than two parties may be 
>>involved.
>>
>>In addition, it would allow the (already existing) requirement of 
>>Customer(PaymentInstrument) authenticated by PaymentHandler, even though 
>>the Customer must send the first AuthRequest TO the PaymentHandler.
>>
>>In flow...
>>                Authentication Exchange
>>   Customer                                Payment Handler
>>   -------------------------------------------------------
>>                   --AuthRequest--> 
>>                   <-AuthExchange-- (Auth Details; crypto method and
>>challenge)
>> (crypto response) --AuthExchange->   check response
>>                   <-AuthResponse-- send status
>>
>>1. Yes, I know it adds round trips. Some of these could travel at the same
>>   time as parts of the Payment Exchange. Some can't. If you want this
>>   functionality. it doesn't come for free.
>>
>>2. This moves us more towards dynamic and generalized Exchange sets. 
>>   Do we *really* want this in Baseline?
>>
>>3. Finally, some of the 'ContinueNetLocn' functionality could be handled
>>   by allowing one party (the Merchant) to send an AuthRequest to the
>>Consumer
>>   but require that the AuthResponse be shipped elsewhere (PaymentHandler).
>>We
>>   do already offer something like this (if I recall correctly) but not in
>>this
>>   more open fashion.
>>
>>Finally, we are again seeing that Org elements (perhaps even new
>>organizations) 
>>may be added to the transaction partway through. For example, I may be
>>prepared 
>>to give certain Org details to a DeliveryHandler (or PaymentHandler) that I
>>do 
>>not want to send to the other party. As such, I do not want to ship the Org 
>>components as they appeared on the TPO - I may even want to add details that
>>the
>>Merchant was not given.
>>
>>This is (my opinion) an even more clear-cut reason to allow Org
>>(organizations) 
>>to be added to the transaction after the startup. There may be several ways
>>to 
>>do this, but we need to decide if we will allow Org components to be added
>>or 
>>modified and what the implications are.
>>
>>And, again, is this something we really want to do for Baseline?
>>
>>-----
>>
>>We are moving steadily in the direction of dynamic transactions and flexible
>>signature architectures. Do we NEED this for Baseline (for 1.0) or can this
>>wait
>>for a later version?
>>
>>...chris
>>
>>______________________________ Reply Separator
>>_________________________________
>>Subject: FW: Authorization before OTP
>>Author:  "Andrew Drapp" [SMTP:andrew@sdl.hitachi.co.jp] at Internet
>>Date:    1998-09-24 09:10
>>
>>
>>This message from David Burdett, and meant for the list.
>>     
>>--
>>Andrew Drapp
>>andrew@sdl.hitachi.co.jp
>>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:David.Burdett@MONDEX.com] 
>>Sent:     Thursday, September 24, 1998 9:36 PM
>>To:     'Andrew Drapp'
>>Subject:     RE: Authorization before OTP
>>     
>>See comments below.
>>     
>>David
>>>----------
>>>From:      Andrew Drapp[SMTP:andrew@sdl.hitachi.co.jp] 
>>>Sent:      24 September 1998 06:02
>>>To:      David Burdett; 'ietf-trade@lists.eListX.com' 
>>>Subject:      RE: Authorization before OTP
>>>
>>>
>>>David,
>>>
>>>I think I explained myself poorly.  When I said that the Org component is
>>in 
>>>the first OTP message, I was referring to the TPO as the first OTP message.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>When you say "The TPO Block can contain Organization Components" how
>>exactly 
>>>do you mean *can*.  From what I understood, the Org components were removed
>>
>>>from the Offer response, and placed only in the TPO Block.  The Org 
>>>component would then be copied from message to message.  So, once the TPO 
>>>message is sent, the Org component has a fixed value that cannot be
>>changed. 
>>>
>>>
>>>If we change the Authentication Transaction so that it contains the details
>>
>>>of the organization which is requesting the Authentication, then those 
>>>details should also include a net location for the auth response to go to. 
>>> If we made that change, then both the consumer and the merchant could 
>>>authenticate each other before a trade actually occurs.
>>>
>>>I think that would solve this problem.
>>>>>Agreed. Provided that the trading role(s) used by the requesting 
>>organisation reflect the organisation's intended role in the actual 
>>transaction. You could also make a constraint that the Organisation 
>>component should not change between the use in the authentication and 
>>the use in, for example, the Baseline Purchase.<<<
>>>
>>>--
>>>Andrew Drapp
>>>andrew@sdl.hitachi.co.jp
>>>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:David.Burdett@MONDEX.com] 
>>>Sent:     Wednesday, September 23, 1998 4:33 PM
>>>To:     'Andrew Drapp'
>>>Cc:     'ietf-trade@lists.eListX.com' 
>>>Subject:     RE: Authorization before OTP 
>>>
>>>Andrew
>>>
>>>Not quite right. The TPO Block can contain Organisation Components. We 
>>>should change the definition of the Authentication Transaction to >require 
>>that this contains the details of the organisation which is >requesting the 
>>Authentication specifying the role in which the >authenticator is taking in 
>>the transaction (Merchant, Payment Handler or >Delivery Handler).
>>>
>>>The consumer will then know who to send the response to. 
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>>>----------
>>>>From:      Andrew Drapp[SMTP:andrew@sdl.hitachi.co.jp] 
>>>>Sent:      22 September 1998 04:15
>>>>To:      'ietf-trade@lists.eListX.com' 
>>>>Subject:      Authorization before OTP 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At the OTP meeting in Reston, there was some discussion of using the 
>>>>Authorization exchange to automate the collection of personal information 
>>>
>>>>for a sale.  This would save time in typing out you name and address each 
>>>
>>>>time you purchased something.  This would have to occur before the first 
>>>OTP
>>>>message is sent, because the Org block is in the first message and cannot 
>>>be
>>>>changed later on.
>>>>
>>>>From what I remember of the meeting, it was generally agreed that this was
>>
>>>a
>>>>good idea, and should be included in version 1.0 or 2.0. 
>>>>
>>>>However, I recently noticed a problem with that approach.  When the 
>>>consumer
>>>>receives an AuthReq block, it will have to be in HTML because the OTP 
>>>client
>>>>has not started yet.  This will kick off the OTP client which will create 
>>>
>>>>the AuthResp block.  The problem is, that the OTP client does not know 
>>>where
>>>>to send the AuthResp block.  No address information is included in the 
>>>>AuthReq block.  It is assumed that the OTP client could just check the 
>>>>TransId for the location, but because this occurs before the Offer 
>>>Exchange,
>>>>there is no TransId to refer too.
>>>>
>>>>Because of this, I suggest that:
>>>>
>>>>1.  We add addressing information to the AuthReq block, 
>>>>
>>>>or
>>>>
>>>>2.  We dump the idea to use the Authorization exchange outside of an OTP 
>>>>transaction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Andrew Drapp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Andrew Drapp
>>>>andrew@sdl.hitachi.co.jp
>>>>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 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>Message addressed to: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com
>>>>Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
>>>>To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the 
>>>>body to: ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>>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: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com
>>>Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
>>>To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the 
>>>body to: ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com
>>>
>>     
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>     
>>     
>>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: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com
>>Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
>>To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the 
>>body to: ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Message addressed to: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com
>>Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
>>To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
>>body to: ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Message addressed to: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com
>Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
>To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
>body to: ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message addressed to: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com
Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
body to: ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-trade Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC