Internet Engineering Task Force F. Dold
Internet-Draft Taler Systems SA
Intended status: Informational C. Grothoff
Expires: September 4, 2019 BFH
March 03, 2019
The 'payto' URI scheme for payments
draft-dold-payto-04
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 September 4, 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 September 4, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme March 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2.2. International Bank Account Number . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2.3. Unified Payments Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2.4. Bitcoin Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2.5. Interledger Protocol Address . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
This document defines the 'payto' Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
[RFC3986] scheme for designating targets for payments. In its
simplest form, a 'payto' URL identifies a payment target type and
optionally a target identifier. Additional parameters, such as an
amount or a payment reference, can be provided.
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,
without delay and churn when new payment systems are introduced.
2. Syntax of a 'payto' URL
This document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) of
[RFC5234].
Dold & Grothoff Expires September 4, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme March 2019
payto-URI = "payto" "://" authority path-abempty [ "?" opts ]
opts = opt *( "&" opt )
opt = (generic-opt / authority-specific-opt) "=" *( pchar )
generic-opt = "amount" / "creditor-name" / "debitor-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 Payto
Payment Target Type 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.
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://sepa/CH9300762011623852957?amount=EUR:200.0&message=hello
INVALID (authority missing): payto:sepa/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.
amount: The amount to transfer, including currency information if
applicable. The format MUST be:
Dold & Grothoff Expires September 4, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme March 2019
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.
creditor-name: Name of the entity that is credited (receives the
payment).
debitor-name: Name of the entity that is debited (makes the payment).
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].
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
Dold & Grothoff Expires September 4, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme March 2019
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 Type Registry".
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)
o Description: A description of the payment target type, including
the semantics of the path in the URI if applicable.
Dold & Grothoff Expires September 4, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme March 2019
o Example: 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
The registration policy for this registry is "First Come First
Served", as described in [RFC5226].
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. International Bank Account Number
o Name: iban
o Description: International Bank Account Number (IBAN). Generally
the IBAN allows to unambiguously derive the the associated BIC
(Bank Identifier Code). 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]
8.2.3. Unified Payments Interface
o Name: upi
Dold & Grothoff Expires September 4, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme March 2019
o Description: Unified Payment Interface. The path is an account
alias. The amount and creditor-name options are mandatory for
this payment target.
o Example: payto://upi/alice@example.com?creditor-
name=Alice&amount=INR:200
o Contact: N/A
o References: [UPILinking]
8.2.4. 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]
8.2.5. 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
[ISO20022]
International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 20022
Financial Services - Universal financial industry message
scheme", May 2013.
[NACHA] NACHA, "NACHA Operating Rules & Guidelines", January 2017.
Dold & Grothoff Expires September 4, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme March 2019
[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
[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/>.
[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
Dold & Grothoff Expires September 4, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft The 'payto' URI scheme March 2019
Christian Grothoff
BFH
Hoeheweg 80
Biel/Bienne CH-2501
CH
Email: christian.grothoff@bfh.ch
Dold & Grothoff Expires September 4, 2019 [Page 9]