doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3504.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3504.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..17236ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3504.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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) >
+      <!ATTLIST PackagedContent
+               Name             CDATA     #IMPLIED
+               Content          NMTOKEN   "PCDATA"
+               Transform   (NONE|BASE64)  "NONE" >
+
+   NEW/CORRECT:
+      <!ELEMENT PackagedContent (#PCDATA) >
+      <!ATTLIST PackagedContent
+                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:
+      <!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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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]
+