rfc2706.txt

来自「RFC 的详细文档！」· 文本 代码 · 共 732 行 · 第 1/2 页

Network Working Goup                                         D. Eastlake
Request for Comments: 2706                                           IBM
Category: Informational                                     T. Goldstein
                                                                  Brodia
                                                            October 1999


                  ECML v1: Field Names for E-Commerce


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 (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

IESG Note

   This document is the output of a vendor consortium, and is not the
   output of an IETF Working Group.  Implementors of this specification
   are warned that this data model is heavily biased toward conventions
   used in the United States, and the English language.  As such it is
   unlikely to be suitable for international or multilingual use in the
   global Internet.

Abstract

   Customers are frequently required to enter substantial amounts of
   information at an Internet merchant site in order to complete a
   purchase or other transaction, especially the first time they go
   there. A standard set of information fields is defined as the first
   version of an Electronic Commerce Modeling Language (ECML) so that
   this task can be more easily automated, for example by wallet
   software that could fill in fields.  Even for the manual data entry
   case, customers will be less confused by varying merchant sites if a
   substantial number adopt these standard fields.











Eastlake & Goldstein         Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2706                    ECom Field Names                October 1999


Acknowledgements

   The following persons, in alphabetic order, contributed substantially
   to the material herein:

           George Burne, Trintech

           Joe Coco, Microsoft

           Kevin Weller, Visa

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction................................................2
   1.1 Background.................................................2
   1.2 Relationship to Other Standards............................3
   1.3 Areas Deferred to Future Versions..........................4
   2. Using The Fields............................................4
   2.1 Presentation of the Fields.................................4
   2.2 Methods and Flow of Setting the Fields.....................5
   2.3 HTML Example...............................................6
   3. Field Definitions...........................................7
   4. End Notes...................................................9
   5. Security Considerations....................................10
   References....................................................11
   Authors' Addresses............................................12
   Full Copyright Statement......................................13

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

   Today, numerous merchants are successfully conducting business on the
   Internet using HTML-based forms. The data formats used in these forms
   varies considerably from one merchant to another. End-users find the
   diversity confusing and the process of manually filling in these
   forms to be tedious.  The result is that many merchant forms,
   reportedly around two thirds, are abandoned during the fill in
   process.

   Software tools called electronic wallets can help this situation.  A
   digital wallet is an application or service that assists consumers in
   conducting online transactions by allowing them to store billing,
   shipping, payment, and preference information and to use this
   information to automatically complete merchant interactions.  This
   greatly simplifies the check-out process and minimizes the need for a
   consumer to complete a merchant's form every time.  Digital wallets
   that fill forms have been successfully built into browsers, as helper



Eastlake & Goldstein         Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2706                    ECom Field Names                October 1999


   applications to browsers, as stand-alone applications, as browser
   plug-ins, and as server-based applications.  But the proliferation of
   electronic wallets has been hampered by the lack of standards.

   ECML (Electronic Commerce Modeling Language, <www.ecml.org>) Version
   1 provides a set of simple guidelines for web merchants that will
   enable electronic wallets from multiple vendors to fill in their web
   forms. The end-result is that more consumers will find shopping on
   the web to be easy and compelling.

   The set of fields documented herein was developed by the
   Wallet/Merchant Standards Alliance (www.ecml.org) which now includes,
   in alphabetic order, the following:

            American Express (www.americanexpress.com)
            AOL (www.aol.com)
            Brodia (www.brodia.com)
            Compaq (www.compaq.com)
            CyberCash (www.cybercash.com)
            Discover (www.discovercard.com)
            FSTC (www.fstc.org)
            IBM (www.ibm.com)
            Mastercard (www.mastercard.com)
            Microsoft (www.microsoft.com)
            Novell (www.novell.com)
            SETCo (www.setco.org)
            Sun Microsystems (www.sun.com)
            Trintech (www.trintech.com)
            Visa (www.visa.com)

   The fields are derived from and consistent with the W3C P3P base data
   schema at

      <http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-P3P/basedata.html>.

1.2 Relationship to Other Standards

   ECML Version 1 is not a replacement or alternative to SSL/TLS [RFC
   2246], SET [SET], XML [XML], or IOTP [IOTP]. These are important
   standards that provide functionality such as non-repudiatable
   transactions, automatable payment scheme selection, and smart card
   support.

   ECML may be used with any payment mechanism.  It simply allows a
   merchant to publish consistent simple web forms.

   Multiple wallets and multiple merchants plan to interoperably support
   ECML.  This is an open standard. ECML is designed to be simple.



Eastlake & Goldstein         Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2706                    ECom Field Names                October 1999


   Version 1 of the project adds no new technology to the web.  A
   merchant can adopt ECML and gain the support of these multiple
   Wallets by making very simple changes to the HTML pages that they
   currently use to support their customers.  Use of ECML requires no
   license.

1.3 Areas Deferred to Future Versions

   Standardization of information fields transmitted from the merchant
   to the consumer, considerations for business purchasing cards, non-
   card payment mechanisms, wallet activation, privacy related
   mechanisms, additional payment mechanisms, and any sort of
   "negotiation" were among the areas deferred to consideration in
   future versions.  Hidden or other special fields were minimized.  The
   primary target was North American consumer to merchant electronic
   commerce.

2. Using The Fields

   To conform to this document, the field names shall be as listed in
   section 3 below.  Note: this does not impose any restriction on the
   user visible labeling of fields, just on their names as used in
   communication with the merchant.

2.1 Presentation of the Fields

   There is no necessary implication as to the order or manner of
   presentation.  Some merchants may wish to ask for more information,
   some less by omitting fields.  Some merchants may ask for the
   information they want in one HTML form on one web page, others may
   ask for parts of the information at different times on different
   pages.  For example, it is common to ask for "ship to" information
   earlier, so shipping cost can be computed, before the payment method
   information.  Some merchants may require that all the information
   they request be provided while other make much information optional,
   etc.

   There is no way with version 1 of ECML to indicate what fields the
   merchant considers mandatory.  From the point of view of customer
   software, all fields are optional to complete.  However, the merchant
   may give an error or re-present a request for information if some
   field it requires is not completed, just as it may if a field is
   completed in a manner it considers erroneous.








Eastlake & Goldstein         Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 2706                    ECom Field Names                October 1999


2.2 Methods and Flow of Setting the Fields

   There are a variety of methods of communication possible between the
   customer and the merchant by which the merchant can indicate what
   fields they want that the consumer can provide.  Probably the easiest
   to use for currently deployed software is as fields in an HTML
   [HTML4.0] form.  Other possibilities are to use the W3C P3P protocol
   or the IOTP Authenticate transaction [IOTP].

   User action or the appearance of the Ecom_SchemaVersion field are
   examples of triggers that could be used to initiate a facility
   capable of filling in fields.  It is required that the
   Ecom_SchemaVersion field, which is usually a hidden field, be
   included on every web page that has any "Ecom_" fields.

   Because web pages can load very slowly, it may not be clear to an
   automated field fill-in function when it is finished filling in
   fields on a web page.  For this reason, it is recommended that the
   Ecom_SchemaVersion field be the last "Ecom_" field on a web page.

   Merchant requests for information can extend over several web pages.
   Without further provision, a facility could either require re-
   starting on each page or possibly violate or appear to violate
   privacy by continuing to fill in fields for pages beyond with end of
   the transaction with a particular merchant.  For this reason the
   Ecom_TransactionComplete field, which is normally hidden, is
   provided.  It is recommended that it appear on the last web page
   involved in a transaction, just before an Ecom_SchemaVersion field,
   so that multi-web-page automated field fill in logic could know when
   to stop if it chooses to check for this field.





















Eastlake & Goldstein         Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 2706                    ECom Field Names                October 1999


2.3 HTML Example

   An example in HTML might be as follows:

   <HTML>
   <HEAD>
   <title> eCom Fields Example </title>
   </HEAD>
   <BODY>
    <FORM action="http://ecom.example.com" method="POST">
   Please enter card information:
   <p>Your name on the card
     <INPUT type="text" name="Ecom_Payment_Card_Name" SIZE=40>
   <br>The card number
     <INPUT type="text" name="Ecom_Payment_Card_Number" SIZE=19>
   <br>Expiration date (MM YY)
     <INPUT type="text" name="Ecom_Payment_Card_ExpDate_Month" SIZE=2>
     <INPUT type="text" name="Ecom_Payment_Card_ExpDate_Year" SIZE=4>
    <INPUT type="hidden" name="Ecom_Payment_Card_Protocol">
    <INPUT type="hidden" name="Ecom_SchemaVersion"
           value="http://www.ecml.org/version/1.0">
   <br>
    <INPUT type="submit" value="submit"> <INPUT type="reset">
    </FORM>
   </BODY>
   </HTML>

   After all of the pages are submitted, the merchant will reply with a
   confirmation page informing both the user and the wallet that the
   transaction is complete.

   <HTML>
   <HEAD>
   <title> eCom Transaction Complete Example </title>
   </HEAD>
   <BODY>
    <FORM>
    Thank you for your order. It will be shipped in several days.
    <INPUT type="hidden" name="Ecom_TransactionComplete">
    <INPUT type="hidden" name="Ecom_SchemaVersion"
           value="http://www.ecml.org/version/1.0">
    </FORM>
   </BODY>
   </HTML>







Eastlake & Goldstein         Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 2706                    ECom Field Names                October 1999


3. Field Definitions

   The fields are listed below along with the minimum data entry size to
   allow.  Note that these fields are hierarchically organized as
   indicated by the embedded underscore ("_") characters.  Appropriate
   consumer to merchant transmission mechanisms may use this to request
   and send aggregates, such as Ecom_Payment_Card_ExpDate to encompass
   all the date components or Ecom_ShipTo to encompass all the ship to
   components that the consumer is willing to provide.  The marshalling
   and unmarshalling of the components of such aggregates depends on the
   data transfer protocol used.

   IMPORTANT NOTE: "MIN" in the table below is the MINIMUM DATA SIZE TO
   ALLOW FOR ON DATA ENTRY.  It is NOT the minimum size for valid
   contents of the field and merchant software should, in most cases, be
   prepared to receive a longer or shorter value.  Merchant dealing with
   areas where, for example, the state/province name or phone number is
   longer than the "Min" given below must obviously permit longer data
   entry.  In some cases, however, there is a maximum size that makes
   sense and where this is the case, it is documented in a Note for the
   field.

      FIELD                      NAME                        Min  Notes