[GNUnet-SVN] [taler-marketing] branch master updated: payto: add expert review (WIP)

[gnunet]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

dold pushed a commit to branch master
in repository marketing.

The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
     new 6c48e85  payto: add expert review (WIP)
6c48e85 is described below

commit 6c48e8535da56009c368ba7ed720830a69b60699
Author: Florian Dold <address@hidden>
AuthorDate: Thu Mar 28 15:15:08 2019 +0100

    payto: add expert review (WIP)
---
 standards/draft-dold-payto.xml | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
 standards/rfc-ise.txt          |  4 ++++
 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/standards/draft-dold-payto.xml b/standards/draft-dold-payto.xml
index ef85fa7..d2dc9d5 100644
--- a/standards/draft-dold-payto.xml
+++ b/standards/draft-dold-payto.xml
@@ -69,9 +69,9 @@
 <section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">
 <t>
   This document defines the 'payto' Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) <xref 
target="RFC3986" /> scheme
-  for designating targets for payments.  In its simplest form, a 'payto' URL
-  identifies a payment target type and optionally a target identifier.  
Additional parameters,
-  such as an amount or a payment reference, can be provided.
+  for designating transfer form data for payments.  In particular, it always 
identifies the target of a payment.
+  A 'payto' URL consists of a payment target type, a target identifier and 
optional parameters
+  such as an amount or a payment reference.
 </t>
 <t>
   The interpretation of the target identifier is defined by the payment target 
type, and typically
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@
 <t>
   A unified URI scheme for all payment target types
   allows applications to offer user interactions with URIs that represent 
payment targets,
-  without delay and churn when new payment systems are introduced.
+  simplifying the introduction of new payment systems and applications.
 </t>
 <t>
 
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ The "payto" URI scheme is to be registered in the 
"Permanent URI Schemes" regist
 <section anchor="payto-registry" title="Payment Target Type Registry">
 <t>
 This document defines a registry for payment methods.  The name of the registry
-is "Payment Target Type Registry".
+is "Payment Target Types".
 </t>
 <t>The registry shall record for each entry:
 <list style="symbols">
@@ -265,7 +265,18 @@ dots and dashes)</t>
 <t>Contact: The contact information of a person to contact for further 
information</t>
 <t>References: Optionally, references describing the payment method (such as 
an RFC) and method-specific options</t>
 </list>
-The registration policy for this registry is "First Come First Served", as 
described in <xref target="RFC5226" />.
+The registration policy for this registry is "expert review", as described in 
<xref target="RFC5226" />.
+The expert should be appointed by the IETF Indenpendent Stream Editor.
+
+The expert SHOULD check that
+* references clearly describe syntax and semantics of the payment target and 
optional parameters if applicable
+* appropriateness of the chosen payment target type name and (if applicable) 
vendor neutrality, specifically
+avoiding conflicts with well-known payment systems and names that have a 
potential to confuse users
+* compatibility of the payment target type specification with the this 
specification
+* the specifications of new payment target types remain within the scope of 
payment transfer form data. In particular
+specifying complete invoices is not in scope.  Neither are processing 
instructions to the bank beyond a simple payment.
+* the optional parameters do not contain information that specifies the 
debitor's account details
+
 </t>
 
 <section anchor="registry-entry-ach" title="ACH Bank Account">
diff --git a/standards/rfc-ise.txt b/standards/rfc-ise.txt
index f515244..d330e47 100644
--- a/standards/rfc-ise.txt
+++ b/standards/rfc-ise.txt
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ Dear IS Editor,
 
 This is a message for the submission of draft-dold-payto to the
 independent stream.  We intend this to be an experimental RFC.
+We believe Bernie discusses this already with you at IETF 104.
 
 Previous drafts have seen review by the IETF communities, and we
 addressed the various comments we have received. As no WG was
@@ -41,6 +42,9 @@ data.  We believe this standard is urgently needed, and have 
had
 discussions with various parties in the financial industry that support
 this assertion. We also implemented this in our own payment system.
 
+Christian Grothoff is willing to serve as the first expert reviewer for the
+IANA registry.
+
 The intended audience are thus developers for applications that deal
 with payments and are seeking a simple standard for specifying wire
 transfer information.

-- 
To stop receiving notification emails like this one, please contact
address@hidden