Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://mirror.msu.net/pub/rfc-editor/rfc-ed-all/rfc3504.txt Дата изменения: Thu Mar 13 04:15:31 2003 Дата индексирования: Mon Oct 1 22:01:05 2012 Кодировка:

Network Working Group D. Eastlake
Request for Comments: 3504 Motorola
Category: Informational March 2003


Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP)
Version 1, Errata

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

Since the publication of the RFCs specifying Version 1.0 of the
Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP), some errors have been noted.
This informational document lists these errors and provides
corrections for them.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.................................................... 2
2. DTD Errata...................................................... 2
2.1 PackagedContent Element..................................... 2
2.2 The Element called Attribute................................ 3
3. Other Errata.................................................... 3
3.1 Re: Combining Authentication Transactions with other
Transactions................................................ 3
3.2 Type attribute of Element called Attribute.................. 3
4. Security Considerations......................................... 4
5. References...................................................... 4
6. Acknowledgements................................................ 4
7. Author's Address................................................ 5
8. Full Copyright Statement........................................ 6











Eastlake Informational [Page 1]

RFC 3504 IOTP v1 Errata March 2003


1. Introduction

The Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP), Version 1.0, is specified
in [RFC 2801, 2802, 2803]. It provides a payment system independent
framework for Internet commerce oriented to consumer to business
transactions. It provides mechanism for different portions of the
business function, such as fulfillment or payment handling, to be
distributed or outsourced. It does not require a prior relationship
between the consumer and business.

Several errors have been noted in the IOTP v1.0 specification,
particularly RFC 2801, which was the largest RFC ever issued. These
are listed, with their fix, in this document.

2. DTD Errata

2.1 PackagedContent Element

Attribute types are swapped.

OLD/INCORRECT:
!ELEMENT PackagedContent (#PCDATA) >
Name CDATA #IMPLIED
Content NMTOKEN "PCDATA"
Transform (NONE|BASE64) "NONE" >

NEW/CORRECT:

Name NMTOKEN #IMPLIED
Content CDATA "PCDATA"
Transform (NONE|BASE64) "NONE" >


















Eastlake Informational [Page 2]

RFC 3504 IOTP v1 Errata March 2003


2.2 The Element called Attribute

Incorrect element content specification syntax.

OLD/INCORRECT:

type NMTOKEN #REQUIRED
critical ( true | false ) #REQUIRED
>

NEW/CORRECT

type NMTOKEN #REQUIRED
critical ( true | false ) #REQUIRED
>

3. Other Errata

3.1 Re: Combining Authentication Transactions with other Transactions

Section 9.1.13. page 234, restarted->continued:

OLD/INCORRECT:
if the Authentication transaction is successful, then the original
IOTP Transaction is restarted

NEW/CORRECT:
if the Authentication transaction is successful, then the original
IOTP Transaction is continued

3.2 Type attribute of Element called Attribute

Section 7.19.1, Page 150, insufficient list of signature types:

OLD/INCORRECT:
There must be one and only one Attribute Element that contains a
Type attribute with a value of IOTP Signature Type and with
content set to either: OfferResponse, PaymentResponse,
DeliveryResponse, AuthenticationRequest, AuthenticationResponse,
PingReq or PingResponse; depending on the type of the signature.









Eastlake Informational [Page 3]

RFC 3504 IOTP v1 Errata March 2003


NEW/CORRECT:
There must be one and only one Attribute Element that contains a
Type attribute with a value of IOTP Signature Type and with
content set to either: OfferResponse, PaymentResponse,
DeliveryResponse, AuthenticationRequest, AuthenticationResponse,
PingReq, PingResponse, AuthenticationStatus, InquiryRequest, or
InquiryResponse; depending on the type of the signature.

AND a similar change extending the list of values in Section 12.1,
Page 262.

And at Section 6.1.2, Page 82, add the following:

AuthenticationStatus any role

InquiryRequest any role

InquiryResponse any role

4. Security Considerations

The errata listed herein are not particularly security related.
Never the less, incorrect implementations due to uncorrected errors
in the specification may compromise security.

5. References

[RFC 2801] Burdett, D., "Internet Open Trading Protocol - IOTP
Version 1.0", RFC 2801, April 2000.

[RFC 2802] Davidson, K. and Y. Kawatsura, "Digital Signatures for the
v1.0 Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP)", RFC 2802,
April 2000.

[RFC 2803] Maruyama, H., Tamura, K. and N. Uramoto, "Digest Values
for DOM (DOMHASH)", RFC 2803, April 2000.

6. Acknowledgements

Thanks to the following people for reporting or responding to reports
of these errata:

Harald Barrera Dubois, Yoshiaki Kawatsura, Chun Ouyang








Eastlake Informational [Page 4]

RFC 3504 IOTP v1 Errata March 2003


7. Author's Address

Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Motorola
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA

Phone: +1-508-851-8280 (w)
+1-508-634-2066 (h)
EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com









































Eastlake Informational [Page 5]

RFC 3504 IOTP v1 Errata March 2003


8. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.



















Eastlake Informational [Page 6]