The 'payto' URI scheme for payments
draft-dold-payto-06
Independent Stream F. Dold
Internet-Draft Taler Systems SA
Intended status: Informational C. Grothoff
Expires: October 19, 2019 BFH
April 17, 2019
The 'payto' URI scheme for payments
draft-dold-payto-06
Abstract
This document defines the 'payto' Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
scheme for designating targets for payments.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Dold & Grothoff Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme April 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Syntax of a 'payto' URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Generic Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Internationalization and Character Encoding . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. URI Scheme Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Payment Target Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2.1. ACH Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2.2. Business Identifier Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2.3. International Bank Account Number . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2.4. Unified Payments Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2.5. Bitcoin Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2.6. Interledger Protocol Address . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
This document defines the 'payto' Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
[RFC3986] scheme for designating transfer form data for payments. In
particular, it always identifies the target of a payment. A 'payto'
URL consists of a payment target type, a target identifier and
optional parameters such as an amount or a payment reference.
The interpretation of the target identifier is defined by the payment
target type, and typically represents either a bank account or an
(unsettled) transaction.
A unified URI scheme for all payment target types allows applications
to offer user interactions with URIs that represent payment targets,
simplifying the introduction of new payment systems and applications.
2. Syntax of a 'payto' URL
This document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) of
[RFC5234].
Dold & Grothoff Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme April 2019
payto-URI = "payto" "://" authority path-abempty [ "?" opts ]
opts = opt *( "&" opt )
opt = (generic-opt / authority-specific-opt) "=" *( pchar )
generic-opt = "amount" / "receiver-name" / "sender-name" /
"message" / "instruction"
authority = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." )
path-abempty = <path-abempty, see [RFC3986], Section 3.3>
pchar = <pchar, see [RFC3986], Appendix A.>
3. Semantics
The authority component of a payment URI identifies the payment
target type. The payment target types are defined in the "Payment
Target Types" registry, see Section 8.2. The path component of the
URI identifies the target for a payment as interpreted by the
respective payment target type. The query component of the URI can
provide additional parameters for a payment. Every payment method
SHOULD accept the options defined in generic-opt. The default
operation of applications that invoke a URI with the payto scheme
SHOULD be to launch an application (if available) associated with the
payment target type that can initiate a payment. If multiple
handlers are registered for the same payment target type, the user
SHOULD be able to choose which application to launch. This allows
users with multiple bank accounts (each accessed the respective
bank's banking application) to choose which account to pay with. An
application SHOULD allow dereferencing a payto URI even if the
payment target type of that URI is not registered in the "Payment
Target Types" registry. Details of the payment MUST be taken from
the path and options given in the URI. The user SHOULD be allowed to
modify these details before confirming a payment.
4. Examples
payto://iban/DE75512108001245126199?amount=EUR:200.0&message=hello
INVALID (authority missing): payto:iban/12345
5. Generic Options
Applications MUST accept URIs with options in any order. The
"amount" option MUST only occur at most once. Other options MAY be
allowed multiple times, with further restrictions depending on the
payment method. The following options SHOULD be understood by every
payment method.
Dold & Grothoff Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme April 2019
amount: The amount to transfer, including currency information if
applicable. The format MUST be:
amount = [ currency ":" ] unit [ "." fraction ]
currency = 1*ALPHA
unit = 1*(DIGIT / ",")
fraction = 1*(DIGIT / ",")
The unit value MUST be smaller than 2^53. If present, the fraction
MUST consist of no more than 8 decimal digits. The use of commas is
optional for readability and they MUST be ignored.
receiver-name: Name of the entity that receives the payment
(creditor).
sender-name: Name of the entity that makes the payment (debtor).
message: A short message to identify the purpose of the payment,
which MAY be subject to lossy conversions (for example, due to
character set encoding limitations).
instruction: A short message giving instructions to the recipient,
which MUST NOT be subject to lossy conversions. Character set
limitations allowed for such instructions depend on the payment
method.
6. Internationalization and Character Encoding
Various payment systems use restricted character sets. An
application that processes 'payto' URIs MUST convert characters that
are not allowed by the respective payment systems into allowable
character using either an encoding or a replacement table. This
conversion process MAY be lossy, except for the instruction field.
To avoid special encoding rules for the payment target identifier,
the userinfo component [RFC3986] is disallowed in payto URIs.
Instead, the payment target identifier is given as an option, where
encoding rules are uniform for all options.
7. Security Considerations
Interactive applications handling the payto URI scheme MUST NOT
initiate any financial transactions without prior review and
confirmation from the user, and MUST take measures to prevent
clickjacking [HMW12].
Dold & Grothoff Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme April 2019
Unless a payto URI is received over a trusted, authenticated channel,
a user might not be able to identify the target of a payment. In
particular due to homographs [unicode-tr36], a payment target type
SHOULD NOT use human-readable names in combination with unicode in
the target account specification, as it could give the user the
illusion of being able to identify the target account from the URL.
To avoid unnecessary data collection, payment target types SHOULD NOT
include personally identifying information about the sender of a
payment that is not essential for an application to conduct a
payment.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. URI Scheme Registration
The "payto" URI scheme is to be registered in the "Permanent URI
Schemes" registry.
Scheme name: payto
Status: permanent
URI scheme syntax: See Section 2.
URI scheme semantics: See Section 3.
Applications/protocols that use this scheme name: payto URIs are
mainly used by financial software, as well as by interactive
applications (e.g. email clients, chat applications) that detect
payto URIs and allow the user to interact with them (e.g. make
them clickable)
Contact: grothoff@gnu.org
Change controller: grothoff@gnu.org
References: See References section of this document.
8.2. Payment Target Type Registry
This document defines a registry for payment methods. The name of
the registry is "Payment Target Types".
The registry shall record for each entry:
o Name: The name of the payment target type (case insensitive ASCII
string, restricted to alphanumeric characters, dots and dashes)
Dold & Grothoff Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme April 2019
o Description: A description of the payment target type, including
the semantics of the path in the URI if applicable.
o Example: At least one example URI to illustrate the payment target
type.
o Contact: The contact information of a person to contact for
further information
o References: Optionally, references describing the payment method
(such as an RFC) and method-specific options, or references
describing the payment system underlying the payment target type.
The registration policy for this registry is "expert review", as
described in [RFC5226]. The expert is appointed by the IETF
Indenpendent Stream Editor. The expert's review SHOULD consider the
following criteria:
1. The proposed registry entry contains all mandatory information.
2. The description clearly defines the syntax and semantics of the
payment target and optional parameters if applicable.
3. Relevant references are provided if they are available.
4. The chosen name is appropriate for the payment target type, does
not conflict with well-known payment systems, and avoids
potential to confuse users.
5. The payment system underlying the payment target type is not
fundamentally incompatible with the general options (such as
positive decimal amounts) in this specification.
6. The payment target type is not a vendor-specific version of a
payment target type that could be described more generally by a
vendor-neutral payment target type.
7. The specification of the new payment target type remains within
the scope of payment transfer form data. In particular
specifying complete invoices is not in scope. Neither are
processing instructions to the payment processor or bank beyond a
simple payment.
8. The payment target and the options do not contain the payment
sender's account details.
Dold & Grothoff Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme April 2019
8.2.1. ACH Bank Account
o Name: ach
o Description: Automated Clearing House. The path consist of two
components, the routing number and the account number.
o Example: payto://ach/122000661/1234
o Contact: N/A
o References: [NACHA]
8.2.2. Business Identifier Code
o Name: bic
o Description: Business Identifier Code. The path consist of just a
BIC. This is used for wire transfers between banks. The registry
for BICs is provided by SWIFT. The path does not allow specifying
a bank account number.
o Example: payto://bic/SOGEDEFFXXX
o Contact: N/A
o References: [BIC]
8.2.3. International Bank Account Number
o Name: iban
o Description: International Bank Account Number (IBAN). Generally
the IBAN allows to unambiguously derive the the associated
Business Identifier Code (BIC). However, some legacy applications
process payments to the same IBAN differently based on the
specified BIC. Thus the path can either consist of a single
component (the IBAN) or two components (BIC and IBAN).
o Example: payto://iban/DE75512108001245126199
payto://iban/SOGEDEFFXXX/DE75512108001245126199
o Contact: N/A
o References: [ISO20022]
Dold & Grothoff Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme April 2019
8.2.4. Unified Payments Interface
o Name: upi
o Description: Unified Payment Interface. The path is an account
alias. The amount and receiver-name options are mandatory for
this payment target.
o Example: payto://upi/alice@example.com?receiver-
name=Alice&amount=INR:200
o Contact: N/A
o References: [UPILinking]
8.2.5. Bitcoin Address
o Name: bitcoin
o Description: Bitcoin protocol. The path is a "bitcoinaddress" as
per [BIP0021].
o Example: payto://bitcoin/12A1MyfXbW6RhdRAZEqofac5jCQQjwEPBu
o Contact: N/A
o References: [BIP0021]
8.2.6. Interledger Protocol Address
o Name: ilp
o Description: Interledger protocol. The path is an ILP address as
per [ILP-ADDR].
o Example: payto://ilp/g.acme.bob
o Contact: N/A
o References: [ILP-ADDR]
9. References
9.1. Normative References
Dold & Grothoff Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme April 2019
[ISO20022]
International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 20022
Financial Services - Universal financial industry message
scheme", May 2013.
[NACHA] NACHA, "NACHA Operating Rules & Guidelines", January 2017.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[unicode-tr36]
Davis, M., Ed. and M. Suignard, "Unicode Technical Report
#36: Unicode Security Considerations", September 2014.
9.2. Informational References
[BIC] International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
9362:2014 Business Identifier Code (BIC)", March 2019,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/60390.html>.
[BIP0021] Schneider, N. and M. Corallo, "Bitcoin Improvement
Proposal 21", January 2012,
<https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021>.
[HMW12] Huang, L., Moshchuk, A., Wang, H., Schecter, S., and C.
Jackson, "Clickjacking: Attacks and Defenses", January
2012, <https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/
usenixsecurity12/sec12-final39.pdf>.
[ILP-ADDR]
Interledger Team, "ILP Addresses - v2.0.0", September
2018, <https://interledger.org/rfcs/0015-ilp-addresses/>.
Dold & Grothoff Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme April 2019
[UPILinking]
National Payment Corporation of India, "Unified Payment
Interface - Common URL Specifications For Deep Linking And
Proximity Integration", May 2016,
<http://www.npci.org.in/documents/
UPILinkingSpecificationsVersion10draft.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses
Florian Dold
Taler Systems SA
7, rue de Mondorf
Erpeldange L-5421
LU
Email: dold@taler.net
Christian Grothoff
BFH
Hoeheweg 80
Biel/Bienne CH-2501
CH
Email: christian.grothoff@bfh.ch
Dold & Grothoff Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 10]