RE: ECML: clear field definitions appreciated

["Lewis, Tony" <TLewis@visa.com>]

On Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:14 AM, Mia Lahteenmaki wrote:

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

I agree wholeheartedly.
 
> 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. 

Perhaps it would be better to use something like
http://www.setco.org/set/v1.0 instead of "set".
 
> 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?  

We should get rid of the names that don't correlate to a specific protocol.
_________________________________________________________________
Tony Lewis (tlewis@visa.com)
Chief Systems Architect, Internet Commerce
Visa International Service Association