Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=walter.stanish@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-bk0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: walter.stanish@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSY8hHiCJYEDv=y48hYRJJtB-R5EBX8JLz6NivBm+Z9PQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwuEiP7CGeZZGW=mXwrFAAqbbwbrPXTPb8vOEDuO9_96hqBGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSY8hHiCJYEDv=y48hYRJJtB-R5EBX8JLz6NivBm+Z9PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:16:26 +0800
Message-ID: <CACwuEiMjf8WYOpfmzHUHMa-sy2VsJHaUNj1cj722Y=P_sosbvw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Walter Stanish <walter@stani.sh>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Precedence: list

>> X-ISO4217-A3
>
> I see that draft-stanish-x-iso4217-a3 is not standards track, is there
> a reason for this?

Of the three currently published proposals, all are essentially IANA
registry proposals.

We are currently working with IETF staff, with open offers of support
from multiple well funded commercial bodies, to transition these
proposals through to IANA management.

It appears that the Independent Stream Editor path will be used to
transition these through to IANA, at which time the proposals
themselves will be converted to Informational status.

(As far as I understand right now, Within the IETF, Standards Track
has special meaning and entails relatively large degrees of
bureaucracy that are not within the current contributors' resources.
It is also worth pointing out that many popular protocols implemented
on the majority of systems (IIRC, such as IMAP) never reach formal
standardization for this reason. It should be noted that in these
cases, this does not make the protocols any less attractive as
potential components for system implementation.)

> It also doesn't appear to address ~any of the the targeted items here.
> Is there another draft I should be looking for which has more overlap
> with the discussion here?

As outlined in the previous post:
  - Internet Financial EXchange (IFEX). A proposal under development
that facilitates the negotiation of financial transactions between
internet-based financial endpoints. (The area we would love your
input) http://www.ifex-project.org/our-proposals/ifex

As well as the information linked to above, significant but not
particularly well grounded discussions have occurred regarding the
IFEX-based paradigm for settlement versus some other proposed
paradigms, in particular Ripple (as it appeared some months ago),
which can be read here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rippleusers/v4bEBZZVEsA[1-25]

Kind regards and with the hopes of combining our efforts as a joint
proposal that can benefit other currencies/commodities and settlement
systems as well as Bitcoin,
Walter Stanish
Skype:walter.stanish