X-ISO4217-A3 (revised draft) Published

[walter]

The first revision to the IETF Internet Standards Draft proposal for an IANA-managed registry of ISO4217 alpha-3 like currency and currency-like commodity identifiers has now been published.

The basic idea behind X-ISO4217-A3 is to provide a mechanism for the open identification of currencies or currency-like commodities on the internet that is unencumbered by the limitations of the traditional ISO4217 registry.

This latest revision integrates the following changes:
  - Complete section on input treatment.
  - Expand treatment of formatting and add section on prefix
    selection in response to feedback from Bill McQuillan.
  - Change ISO identifier to 'Z' in response to feedback
    from Bill McQuillan.
  - Add IANA notes on handling ISO duplicate assignments.
  - Modify IANA considerations regarding code maintenance.
  - Correct formatting and typographic errors.

While the latest draft should shortly be available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stanish-x-iso4217-a3-01 it can be accessed immediately via the IFEX Project at https://sites.google.com/a/ifex-project.org/wiki/our-proposals/x-iso4217-a3

Kind regards,
Walter Stanish
The IFEX Project
http://ifex-project.org/

[Ente]

The first revision to the IETF Internet Standards Draft proposal for an IANA-managed registry of ISO4217 alpha-3 like currency and currency-like commodity identifiers has now been published.

The basic idea behind X-ISO4217-A3 is to provide a mechanism for the open identification of currencies or currency-like commodities on the internet that is unencumbered by the limitations of the traditional ISO4217 registry.

This latest revision integrates the following changes:
  - Complete section on input treatment.
  - Expand treatment of formatting and add section on prefix
    selection in response to feedback from Bill McQuillan.
  - Change ISO identifier to 'Z' in response to feedback
    from Bill McQuillan.
  - Add IANA notes on handling ISO duplicate assignments.
  - Modify IANA considerations regarding code maintenance.
  - Correct formatting and typographic errors.

While the latest draft should shortly be available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stanish-x-iso4217-a3-01 it can be accessed immediately via the IFEX Project at https://sites.google.com/a/ifex-project.org/wiki/our-proposals/x-iso4217-a3

Kind regards,
Walter Stanish
The IFEX Project
http://ifex-project.org/

Welcome onboard Walter!
It's nice to have people like you here, right at the heart of the community!
I would be happy to see your proposal to be included into the iso. From what I read last, it doesn't look too good though, they answered somewhat detailed why "BTC" won't be included any time soon.
IFEX looks like you get some serious work done. Would you like to write a bit who you people are and what you do?
Yes, there is info on your webpage, but I still have no clue if you are a hobbyists group which like currencies, or a multi-billion dollar thinktank right at the center of the worlds finance.. ;-)

Cheers!

Ente

edit:
On this topic: "getting BTC into ISO 4217 currency list":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123600.0

[walter]

Maybe it would be useful to give some background for the community here to make sure people understand the nature of the proposal.

The ISO (International Organization for Standardization / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization) provides a various global standards related to a wide range of areas of human endeavour.

The IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF) is the body that has historically developed and maintained the protocols that run the internet - TCP/IP, SMTP, HTTP, POP, IMAP, etc. The IETF's work is generally done in a very formal manner via documents known as Internet Standards Drafts.  The proposal in question is one of these.

These days, a separate body known as IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) manages various registries or lists on behalf of the IETF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority

The draft being announced here requests that IANA manages a list of currencies and currency-like commodities that sidesteps some of the issues with ISO's ISO4217 registry (listed in the document) in order to better support the development of internet connected systems.

Of particular interest to the Bitcoin community is that this means that the currently informal use of BTC can be codified and normalized without ISO approval.

Edit: Fair question. Right now the IFEX Project is something like a loose collaboration between a bunch of Silicon Valley companies, some alternative financial systems communities, programmers, members of affiliated standards bodies, academic researchers, former Swiss bank security professionals, and other interested parties. We are certainly not a multi-billion dollar thinktank!

[jgarzik]

Thanks for keeping us in the loop.  Good stuff.

[bg002h]

Wow. Strong work Walter. This is like...the real deal...

Why is it that I can hear Wayne and Garth saying "we're not worthy" over and over in my head...

[LightRider]

Looking forward to the official designation.

[walter]

Hello!

Paragraph "Ease of financial endpoint identification" @ For Digital Currencies page ends abruptly with and

Erp, thanks, fixed.

[Liquid]

Good job 

So does this cover alt coins like Litecoin PPC ect ...  ?

[walter]

Good job 

So does this cover alt coins like Litecoin PPC ect ...  ?

Sure thing! That's just what the proposal is intended for.

In fact, a new version of the draft is already with the IETF Secretariat that should be published in the next few hours that covers Tonal Bitcoin (TBC) by request of another user on this forum.

Any further currencies are welcome to request registration - just PM me here or feel free to be a bit more formal and post to http://group.ifex-project.org/

Regards,
Walter

[foo]

This is a brilliant solution: if the ISO won't cooperate, then let's make them obsolete.

PS. You've misspelled "liaison" in section 5.5

EDIT: Also, you've listed ZEUR as is_historic?

[maaku]

Why is an unreleased credit system with no publicly available information (Ripple.com) so prominently featured in the text and included in the initial registry contents?

[walter]

Why is an unreleased credit system with no publicly available information (Ripple.com) so prominently featured in the text and included in the initial registry contents?

Fair question. The whole point of an IANA-managed registry is to supply codepoints to anyone who asks with a reasonable case, in order to support interoperability and innovation, which the current ISO registry does not appear to do. (Just FYI: in this case, though it's not really necessary to justify for the aforementioned reason, the supplying party also shared functional pre-release source code implementing their solution that is soon to be released with significant commercial backing, so it's definitely not vaporware.)

[walter]

This is a brilliant solution: if the ISO won't cooperate, then let's make them obsolete.

I don't think the ISO will go away any time soon. But yes, an alternate but superset-compatible registry does appear to be the most practical way around the issues people are facing, and not just the Bitcoin community. (For example, you can also observe that there are also no carbon offset trading commodities ISO4217-registered at present, some countries have issues getting registrations, some larger LETS communities probably wouldn't mind one, etc.)

PS. You've misspelled "liaison" in section 5.5

Erp! Well spotted. This will be resolved in draft 03.

EDIT: Also, you've listed ZEUR as is_historic?

Thanks - well spotted, again. It appears, at initial inspection, that this must been caused by a logic bug within the code written to parse the official ISO4217 registry and generate the proposed initial registry contents for the X-ISO4217-A3 drafts. This will also be resolved in draft 03.

[maaku]

Why is an unreleased credit system with no publicly available information (Ripple.com) so prominently featured in the text and included in the initial registry contents?

Fair question. The whole point of an IANA-managed registry is to supply codepoints to anyone who asks with a reasonable case, in order to support interoperability and innovation, which the current ISO registry does not appear to do. (Just FYI: in this case, though it's not really necessary to justify for the aforementioned reason, the supplying party also shared functional pre-release source code implementing their solution that is soon to be released with significant commercial backing, so it's definitely not vaporware.)

Doesn't make a lick of difference.

I wrote a nastier response, but retracted as in principle I agree with what you are doing and don't want to burn any bridges. But know that it looks bad from the outside:

IFEX doesn't seem to have any connection with IANA, IETF, or any of the governing standards bodies and registries you mention. Despite appearances this proposal is not officially linked to any of those agencies in any way, shape, or form, is informative not normative, and is not on a standards track. In addition to this, your proposal prominently cites an unreleased commercial project, which combined with the unsanctioned association with standards bodies gives them an undeserved impression of “official” approval just before their supposed public launch. Are you sincere in your efforts, or a sock-puppet for Jed and co.? It looks the same from where I sit, and reflects badly on all involved.

My advice: drop association with any unreleased commercial projects, and have such groups publicly follow the same procedures as everyone else for getting registered *after* they launch.

[walter]

Why is an unreleased credit system with no publicly available information (Ripple.com) so prominently featured in the text and included in the initial registry contents?

Fair question. The whole point of an IANA-managed registry is to supply codepoints to anyone who asks with a reasonable case, in order to support interoperability and innovation, which the current ISO registry does not appear to do. (Just FYI: in this case, though it's not really necessary to justify for the aforementioned reason, the supplying party also shared functional pre-release source code implementing their solution that is soon to be released with significant commercial backing, so it's definitely not vaporware.)

Doesn't make a lick of difference.

You are more than welcome to propose an alternative, judgemental system, however I do not think IANA wants to spend time building an expert panel to judge such things.  It is easier and more practical to accept all comers an a spirit of openness and cooperation.

I wrote a nastier response, but retracted as in principle I agree with what you are doing and don't want to burn any bridges. But know that it looks bad from the outside:

Thanks for your support. It's hard to get consensus on anything, particlarly internet wide. I think this principal agreement is the most pragmatic level to seek. As for appearances, I don't have time to worry about this and would prefer to focus on the technical proposals.

IFEX doesn't seem to have any connection with IANA, IETF, or any of the governing standards bodies and registries you mention. Despite appearances this proposal is not officially linked to any of those agencies in any way, shape, or form, is informative not normative, and is not on a standards track. In addition to this, your proposal prominently cites an unreleased commercial project, which combined with the unsanctioned association with standards bodies gives them an undeserved impression of “official” approval just before their supposed public launch. Are you sincere in your efforts, or a sock-puppet for Jed and co.? It looks the same from where I sit, and reflects badly on all involved.

My advice: drop association with any unreleased commercial projects, and have such groups publicly follow the same procedures as everyone else for getting registered *after* they launch.

Thanks for your input. I am not really sure what you are talking about toward the end there, but I should re-iterate that due to both principal of openness and to the practical concerns regarding IANA workload and procedure for complex judgements, we are going the lowest-friction and least hassle route of giving codepoints to all comers, and this is a good policy for time-saving on politicking - both for the proposals and for applicants.  If you have any technically-oriented feedback it would also be very welcome.

[Sukrim]

In fact, a new version of the draft is already with the IETF Secretariat that should be published in the next few hours that covers Tonal Bitcoin (TBC) by request of another user on this forum.

Well, I can guess which one - probably because he's the single person in the world that uses this system... why should this be in a standard?! What about base17 Euro or base19 USD?

Anyways, thanks for the work so far and I really would recommend to either only use bitcoin or just a generic made-up currency as example and let actual currencies be included in a proper process and not just "from the top of your head".

[walter]

Well, I can guess which one - probably because he's the single person in the world that uses this system... why should this be in a standard?! What about base17 Euro or base19 USD?

It's all beside the point to discuss it, but yeah it sounds pretty obtuse and unworkable to me too. But who knows, maybe with future computing paradigms or science fiction virtual world economies or something the model will take off, and if so - that's great. In heterogeneity lies strength.

Remember also that an IANA registry is basically a vocabulary of codepoints used to facilitate unambiguous communication. It doesn't imply any support for or evaluation of a particular subject. It's just facilitating interoperability. There are plenty of pretty-damn-dead protocols in /etc/services.

Anyways, thanks for the work so far and I really would recommend to either only use bitcoin or just a generic made-up currency as example and let actual currencies be included in a proper process and not just "from the top of your head".

OK, fair point, I agree I made a mistake here and maybe it wasn't the best of examples, which is probably regrettable. It would be wrong to alter it right now though, since it's not technically relevant to the proposal and that would open a can of worms. Maybe in some later future release someone will flip the example if the system becomes a footnote in history (or a new Goliath against which fresher underdogs might be supported, hah!).