[Previous] [Next] [Index] [Thread]

distinctions btw e-payment, www-buyinfo and www-sec; standard goal.

I've seen quite a few of these complaints. Obviously www-sec is not
a proper match, as it should and does discuss general web security issues
(ssl/shttp/md5, CGI volunerabilities,...) but maybe www-buyinfo is (see:
http://www.research.att.com/www-buyinfo/).
Most messages do deal with payment methods. So, there is some sense in merging
there.

On the other hand, I feel www-buyinfo is in fact too general to discuss
specific
drafts in an attempt to develop a standard. This is our intention with
e-payment. So, my proposal is:

www-sec is for general web security
www-buyinfo is for general discussion of all payment tools
e-payment is for developing an Internet standard for secure, keyed payments.

We want to move rapidly to create this standard, within the IETF, probably
beginning with a BOF in the Stockholm IETF meeting (July 17-22). I believe
e-payment would become the mailinglist of the working group. Jeff Schiller,
the IETF security area director, supports this effort.

What we should try to do is to send messages according to these criteria.
One problem is that when somebody does not respect these rules, his messages,
and much worse the replies, reach all lists. This is hard to avoid in
unmediated lists. I hope we can keep this to minimum, by sending direct
messages to such
individuals asking them to focus on the right list, and by replying only on
the relevant list; also, one reply on each list should instruct people to
discuss the question on the right list.

For people who are interested in the area but would not want to follow and
contribute to the standard, I suggest that we would post periodically a
`progress report' in www-buyinfo and www-sec, so they could just follow these
more general discussion lists.

Hope this is acceptable. Let me suggest that replies should be sent only
to e-payment (or to me personally, but not both...).

Best, Amir



 (focusing on a simple, easy to implement solution, with minimal licensing,
high security, and
sw only support; read: not e-cash).
read: not e-cash

------- Forwarded Message

Return-Path: root
Received: from yktvmv-ob.watson.ibm.com by gimili.watson.ibm.com (AIX 3.2/UCB
5.64/930311)
          id AA31827; Tue, 16 May 1995 16:51:33 -0400
Received: from watson.vnet.ibm.com by yktvmv.watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
   with BSMTP id 3255; Tue, 16 May 95 16:51:32 EDT
Received: from YKTVMV by watson.vnet.ibm.com with "VAGENT.V1.0"
          id <A.OWNER-WW.NOTE.YKTVMV.7470.May.16.16:51:30.-0400>
          for amir@watson; Tue, 16 May 95 16:51:32 -0400
Received: from ns2.rutgers.edu by watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP;
   Tue, 16 May 95 16:51:29 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ns2.rutgers.edu
(8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) id MAA01189 for www-security-outgoing;
Tue, 16 May 1995 12:14:47 -0400
Received: from obelix.WHU-Koblenz.de (obelix.WHU-Koblenz.DE [193.141.48.36])
by ns2.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with ESMTP id
MAA01183 for <www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu>; Tue, 16 May 1995 12:14:40 -0400
Received: from sirius.wi.WHU-Koblenz.de (sirius.wi.WHU-Koblenz.DE
[193.141.48.66]) by obelix.WHU-Koblenz.de (8.6.8.1/8.6.4) with SMTP id
SAA14590; Tue, 16 May 1995 18:13:39 +0200
Received: from aldebaran by sirius.wi.WHU-Koblenz.de (NX5.67e/NX3.0M 25.05. WR)
	id AA12968; Tue, 16 May 95 18:12:21 +0200
From: Wolfgang Roeckelein <wolfgang@wi.whu-koblenz.de>
Message-Id: <9505161612.AA12968@sirius.wi.WHU-Koblenz.de>
Received: by aldebaran.wi.WHU-Koblenz.de (NX5.67e/NX3.0X)
	id AA00933; Tue, 16 May 95 18:12:16 +0200
Date: Tue, 16 May 95 18:12:16 +0200
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.100)
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.100)
To: "S. Alexander Jacobson" <alex@virtual.office.com>
Subject: Re: Overlapping lists
Cc: e-payment@ccbellcore.com, www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu,
        www-buyinfo@allegra.att.com
Sender: owner-www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU

>I am on all three of theses lists.
>
>	e-payment@ccbellcore.com,

>	www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu,

>	www-buyinfo@allegra.att.com

Me, too.
>
>Everything posted to any of these lists seems to be cross posted to the

>others.    The result is that I get three of every post to any of these.

>
>Is there a reason for three separate completely overlapped lists on the

>same topic?  Can we merge them into one list?
>
>If not, can someone enunciate some clear principles for differentiating

>what should be on each list?

I second this. We need either one list or a clear distinctions, end esp. no
crossposting!! It is really annoying, esp. because these lists have different
lags, so I don't receive all three copies at once, but often with a lot of
other mails in between.

  Wolfgang Roeckelein
- ---
Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Inf.	Voice:	+49 261 6509 173
Wolfgang Roeckelein	Fax:	+49 261 6509 179
WHU Koblenz		E-Mail:	roeckelein@wi.whu-koblenz.de
Burgplatz 2			(NeXTmail ok)
D-56179 Vallendar
Germany
- ------- echo test | rsa -e 10001 1967cb529 | rsa -d ac363601 1967cb529
--------
#!/usr/local/bin/perl -s-- #export-a-crypto-system sig, RSA in 4 lines PERL:
$e-$d&(($k,$n)=@ARGV)==2||die"$0 -d|-e key mod <in >out\n";$v=$w=1+length$n&
~1;$v-=$d*2;$w-=$e*2;$_=unpack('B*',pack('H*',1&length$k?"0$k":$k));s/^0+//;
s/1/0lM*ln%/g;s/0/d*ln%/g;while(read(STDIN,$m,$w/2)){$m=unpack("H$w",$m);$a=
`echo 16oOi\U$m SM$n\Esn1$_ p|dc`;print pack("H$v",'0'x($v+1-length$a).$a);}
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Residents of the U.S.A. & France *MUST NOT* include this .sig if following up!
**** Residents of France & Russia *MUST NOT* make any use of this -sig !  ****

------- End of Forwarded Message