RFC3504 - Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP) Version 1, Errata

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

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

1. Introduction

The Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP), Version 1.0, is specified

in [RFC2801, 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 RFC2801, which was the largest RFCever 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) >

<!ATTLIST PackagedContent

Name CDATA #IMPLIED

Content NMTOKEN "PCDATA"

Transform (NONEBASE64) "NONE" >

NEW/CORRECT:

<!ELEMENT PackagedContent (#PCDATA) >

<!ATTLIST PackagedContent

Name NMTOKEN #IMPLIED

Content CDATA "PCDATA"

Transform (NONEBASE64) "NONE" >

2.2 The Element called Attribute

Incorrect element content specification syntax.

OLD/INCORRECT:

<!ELEMENT Attribute ( ANY ) >

<!ATTLIST Attribute

type NMTOKEN #REQUIRED

critical ( true false ) #REQUIRED

>

NEW/CORRECT

<!ELEMENT Attribute ANY >

<!ATTLIST Attribute

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.

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

[RFC2801] Burdett, D., "Internet Open Trading Protocol - IOTP

Version 1.0", RFC2801, April 2000.

[RFC2802] Davidson, K. and Y. Kawatsura, "Digital Signatures for the

v1.0 Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP)", RFC2802,

April 2000.

[RFC2803] Maruyama, H., Tamura, K. and N. Uramoto, "Digest Values

for DOM (DOMHASH)", RFC2803, 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

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

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 RFCEditor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
 
 
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有 導航