RE:RE: ECML: clear field definitions appreciated

[mia.lahteenmaki@nokia.com]

> On Tuesday 06. March 2001 18:51, Lewis, Tony wrote: 
> 
> On Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:11 AM, Mia Lahteenmaki wrote:
> 
> > 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), 
> 
> I agree that the fields need to be clearly defined. However, on this
> particular field, the specification to allow new values for 
> the field to be
> created easily. When new payment protocols are created, it 
> should be easy to
> add the protocol so that the creators feel comfortable using 
> IOTP. Perhaps
> it is just a matter of creating a registrar for the values.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tony Lewis (tlewis@visa.com)
> Chief Systems Architect, Internet Commerce
> Visa International Service Association

Good point. I was being unclear. 
I agree Tony that adding new protocols to the 
list should be easy. My intention on the particular 
field was that when introducing a new item value for 
the protocol field we can give 
a)a pointer to the protocol spec or 
b) say that this is a proprietary protocol that 
is not public and it is used by xxx systems. 

In another words, the protocol names on the list must 
unambiquously reference to one protocol. 

Like 'set' is for SET protocol and in the ECML spec a 
reference to the SET specs can be given. 
Both parties know exactly what it means. Merchant can 
create a SET wakeup to start the process. 

Now there exist "protocol names" already in the list 
that do not have unambiguous meaning, like "simcard" 
and "phoneid". These values do not define any one protocol 
or at least we have no reference to such protocols. 
So if merchant receives these values from the wallet 
what he should do next?  

I assume that the underlying assumption about the mobile
world has been that the customer is able to shop only in 
a closed operator network where both the customer and 
the merchant necessarily have contracts with the operator. 
Inside this network the meaning of these protocol names 
would then be unabiquously defined and everything would 
work fine.
With mobile access to internet e.g., via WAP this is not 
however true. 

Best Regards,
Mia