Re: new ECML v 2 requirements from Nokia

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Donald,

The big issue is jurisdiction, from which the regulatory circumstances and
taxation consequences of a transaction arise.

> I'm not quite so clear on country codes but if you include the codes
> reserved in ISO 3166 but not actually issued, I think you cover the entities
> in the Universal Postal Union.  Can you give an example of a jurisdiction
> not covered by that which would be of any significance in this protocol?

The Navajo Nation is vastly larger than the Vatican State, Monacco, Pitcarn's
Island, the Channel Islands, the Sechyelles, and a dozen Pacific Nations ...
combined. The Pequot Nation is vastly wealthier than some of those also.

To limit the territorial jurisdiction identifiers to the criteria set by the
DIN makes two-byte comparison easy, but it subordinates use to "states".

Tell me how I can use thie protocol if the trading community consists of
financial clearinghouse operating companies located within the soverign
indigenous nations of North America (I already know the answer for soverign
colonial nations).

> This protocol will only be interoperable to the extent that field values are
> well defined. There is nothing wrong with having non-interoperable private
> values and extensions, but I believe we should strive to have an
> interoperable core of values.

We shouldn't use iso3166 unless there really is no alternative. Until last
year you couldn't even find Palestine in 3166.

Practially speaking, for iso3166 territorial jurisdictions (TJs), implementors
will use 3166 code. Realistically, implementors for non-3166 TJs will consult
the TJ for identifiers.

Eric