ECML: clear field definitions appreciated

[mia.lahteenmaki@nokia.com]

Hi,
Old ECML fields were self-explanatory, so they could be explained with a few
foot notes but the new fields require clear definitions, or otherwise the
spec looses its main aim. 

One requirement for the specification work could be that 
a)fields are well-defined in detail for any party to use or 
b)it is explicitly said that this is proprietary field and you can use it as
you like. So if we want to support proprietary work, that's also fine, but
let's do it openly then so that the whole point of spec is not lost.

The fields that in my opinion do not fullfil the above requirements at all
are
1) Ecomm_Payment_Card_Protocol (some values still unclear, although Donald
Eastlake has been admirably trying to get some answers), and 

2) Ecomm_Transaction_Signature field (Ecomm_Transaction_Signature) where the
footnote tells that 
"(31) The signature of the encoded certificate.  This is usually a hidden
field."
Huh? What does this mean?

3) Ones that are promised to be defined later :-)  We will hear about these
more soon I hope.


Best Regards
Mia Lahteenmaki