Web Payments Working Group Teleconference -- 07 Jan 2016

<scribe> scribe: Ian

Welcome back!

nicktr: Hope you had a good break!

Flows

Reminder - today is the deadline for flows that we would take forward

-> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Flows Flows

nicktr: Want to document the ones we have and whether sufficient, then to look at one and how to use it.
... AOB besides flows and issues management?

[None uttered]

MattS: Here's what we've captured so far

<nicktr> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Flows

<manu> Flows page is here: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Flows

Here are the ones we have today:

Credit/Debit/Charge Cards Standard, 3DS, Tokenisation

PSP Hosted Payment

General Redirect

SEPA Credit Transfer Raw , Web Initiated via PSP

SEPA Direct Debit

PayPal

Masterpass

Apple Pay Native-App

Realtime Payment

Cross Border Credit Transfer

=====

Here are the ones we had commitments for but did not yet get:

BitCoin - @adrianhopebailie

Samsung Pay - @mountie

Escrow Payment - @mountie

====

There are also two nearly done:

AliPay - Zephyr (complete, but needs laying out in PlantUML)

Bank Supplied Wallet - Laurent (complete, but needs checking into GitHub)

======

[IJ: Kudos to all the flows creators]

MattS: We may continue to refine the flows over the next week to be easier to compare
... we are still working on standardizing some vocabulary issues
... we'd like to refine those we have over the coming weeks
... I've asked Zephyr to turn his into PlantUML, and I should be able to check in Laurent's bank supplied wallet.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to provide an update on the flows I have been documenting when Matts is done

AdrianHB: I have pulled in Laurent's request...so his should be available now.
... I've also put in 2 bitcoin flows.
... one p2p scenario, and one representative of the bitcoin protocol
... it also occurred to me late in the game that I should probably document at least one inter ledger flow (from the CG work)
... there are a few use cases that we could document.

MattS: I defer to our chairs on whether to accept the additional flows.

nicktr: First, to Matt and all contributors - THANK YOU
... Are we happy to accept the bitcoin flows (even if not yet reviewed)?

<Laurent> Happy to accept both flows in

<AdrianHB> +1 to extend the deadline for Samsung Pay and Escrow (will try to do escrow now that I'm on a plantUML roll)

PROPOSED:

* extend deadline to 11 January for samsung + escrow + interledger

<manu> +1

<dlongley> +1

<AdrianHB> +1

<nicktr> +1

<collier-matthew> +1

<zkoch> +1

<Rouslan> +1

<Laurent> +1

<CyrilV> +

SO RESOLVED

<Ryladog> +1

nicktr: So how do we use the flows?

MattS: See emerging observations from using the flows to evaluate the specs

https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Emerging-Flows-Task-Force-Observations

Example, 3DS 1.0

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask what happens to flows that we discover in time?

Manu: I am a bit concerned about drawing a line to say "no more flows"
... I don't see a reason to do that.

<shepazu> +1 to manu

MattS: My understanding was that this was the deadline for flows to be met in the FPWD.

nicktr: I would like to use the flows that we've got, but if something comes up and there's consensus to add, then we should add them.

<AdrianHB> +1 to needing consensus on adding any new flows after this

adrianHB: This is a prioritization, not a restriction
... so going forward there is a higher bar for getting your flow in scope

manu: That satisfied me.

<dlongley> +1 to requiring consensus for new flows, good to have a clear list to at least get to FPWD

<manu> +1 - get consensus on adding new flows, but don't restrict flows to just the ones we have right now.

CyrilV: On the question of "how to use the flows" do we have to factorize the presentation of the flows? there are different details? Part of some is in clearing and settlement.

<VincentK> +1 on rationalisation the level of details

CyrilV: So when looking at the flows I think we should normalize them somewhat

<kris> +1

<VincentK> +1 on normalisation both on format, form and details

MattS: I think there is some refactoring necessary. that should be driven by reviews of these flows by this WG

<AdrianHB> +1 to matts - yes, the next step is for us to normalise the flows

MattS: I am awaiting from Vincent some ISO20022 to help refactor

<kris> yes!

mattS: I don't think we have resolved our vocabulary yet within this group, so I propose for the flows that we use ISO20022 until it doesn't meet our needs and then we make up our own terms

VincentK: I am preparing an overview of actors and business models to help harmonize and rationalize the flows in the same way

nicktr: Thank you, Vincent.
... I would like to ask people in the group to read the flows.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to ask at the appropriate time for commitments to review

<manu> Ian: I know we want to get to the topic of how to use the flows.

<manu> Ian: I think if people concretely sign up for flow reviews, distribute across group - that'll be helpful.

<manu> Ian: Let's have people sign up to review specific flows, rather than having a general invitation.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to discuss vocab from our architecture vs ISO20022

AdrianHB: let's use github to record the actions
... we would add them to issues list, put under flows, label as actions, and assign to a person

<VincentK> Wanted to ask on the mechanism on how to provide the comments

<VincentK> +1 github issues

IJ: I suggest we record here in the minutes who is doing what.
... and then record in github later

AdrianHB: MattS mentioned vocab and using ISO20022. I want to ensure we differentiate between the type of information in the flow diagrams from the vocabulary in the payment architecture document; they are disjoint
... we'll find as MattS says that when we document the flows (with ISO20022 terms) we will find that there are technical components that are not accommodated and we can use the stuff we've put together.

MattS: Yes, I think there will be things that don't fit into ISO20022. In some cases, we will want to extend the vocabulary. And in some cases we will want to do our own terms (e.g., around tech architecture). I think we may also find edge cases.
... Vincent and Kris also have indicated they are open to extending ISO20022 based on our input

kris: ISO20022 is open about definitions...goal is to have mutual understanding. When you have a specific flow your definitions may need to be further specified...
... we have various ways to do this (including subclasses and synonyms)

nicktr: Any concerns about proceeding:

- Use for flows ISO20022 where we can

- For technical components expect to use WG terms

- Work with ISO20022 RA for any updates they would need based on our experience

<MattS> +1

scribe: and any conflicts or overlaps we bring to this WG for discussion

<nicktr> +1

<manu> +1 to what Nick suggested - use ISO20022 terminology in flows where possible, use technical vocabulary for specs (if common term doesn't exist in ISO20022), and work w/ ISO20022 RA for any issues that come up.

<dlongley> +1

<Laurent> +1

SO RESOLVED

AdrianHB: MattS mentioned "payment method" which I think will be in the grey area...let's pick this up as an agenda item on our next call

(IJ suggests that people work on this in the task force)

(And bring a proposal to the WG)

<manu> +1 to do refactoring before reviews.

MattS: Regarding review of the flows, I suggest that the flows task force do some refactoring before the next level of review.

+1 to refactoring before reviews

scribe: but get people to sign up NOW

nicktr: +1 to the proposal and to getting people to sign up now

MattS: Flows may become available in a staggered fashion
... +1 to getting volunteers sooner

Using the Flows

MattS: On emerging observations

<nicktr> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Emerging-Flows-Task-Force-Observations

MattS: I suggest that we continue to augment this page as we get more observations
... so regarding 3DS 1.0...for example
... I'm open to suggestions on how to expand this page.
... I think our wiki issues are falling into broad categories

<manu> tag issues w/ 'flows'

See also "Key Differences Between Current Proposals to WG"

https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Key-Differences-Between-Current-Proposals-to-WG

<AdrianHB> +1 to manu (I have created a Flows milestone)

CyrilV: It would be useful to find the "most template-like" flow as one to help people understand the flows

<manu> Ian: For educational purposes, if there is a flow that is representative - share that flow, that'll help people understand flows - is that what you meant?

<manu> CyrilV: It was not the most template-like.

<manu> Ian: If you can find the "mean" of the other ones - what is it that you intended?

MattS: I don't think it's possible to find a "mean" flow

<manu> I agree - credit card standard flow.

MattS: but I think we should do the standard credit card flow

<AdrianHB> +1

<zkoch> sounds good to me

MattS: we should verify that it fits perfectly

<manu> +1 to MattS - let's focus on credit card standard flow.

MattS: and that would help us identify the flows that don't fit as well

<manu> (as a first cut)

CyrilV: I'm ok with that.
... If I wanted to get more into the SEPA credit transfer, it's good for me to have an example to use for level of detail, etc.

(Sounds like the task force should come up with some guidance on that)

CyrilV: I'll use the card flow for guidance for now

MattS: One thing I did for SEPA Credit Transfer, I took Cyril's "Raw" flow and I added the wrapper around it to make it a web payments flow...

http://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/proxy?fmt=svg&src=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/webpayments/gh-pages/PaymentFlows/CreditTransfer/WebInitiatedSEPACreditTransfer-Current.pml

MattS: What I plan to do in reviewing the other flows...I want to refactor the ones I authored to fit into the pattern of "checkout basket"
... I'm open to help on this

<CyrilV> * bye All, I have to quit the meeting

Laurent: I volunteer to help MattS

VincentK: In the flows I documented, we have the first step (checkout, payment obligation)
... that step establishes the contract between merchant and customer
... there are various other flows behind the scene when the contract is established, but the web payments are linked
... you need a certain number of elements in the payment obligation however
... so there are "two types of flows" as Cyril mentioned, and they are linked together. We should consider one in the scope of the other.

MattS: I agree.
... i am seeking to clarify this for our audience in the refactoring
... so maybe the task force should review what I've done with the SEPA flow and see if it's uesful

nicktr: +1

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say how he expects to use the flows.

manu: MattS I want to figure out how to help but don't yet know how to do it yet.
... I want to run the credit card flow through the CG proposal and document it somewhere....where do you want the evaluation documented?

MattS: Let me think about that. I am supportive of that...let's chat offline about how to do this and share with others those thoughts.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest comparisons with proposals are done against the proposals

AdrianHB: I think that if anyone wants to use those flows as a tool against a proposal, then output should be captured against the proposal instead of the WG issues list.
... so the WG issue list remains for meta/high-level issues
... and those issues can reference proposals.

<manu> not my proposal - the Web Payments CG's proposal :)

AdrianHB: so Manu's evaluation of the CG proposal should go into the wiki of the CG or some artifact tied to the CG's proposal

Summary

- The TF will refactor the flows

- We expect a few more flows by 11 January.

<scribe> ACTION: nicktr to ping Mountie about samsung and escrow flows [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/07-wpwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Ping mountie about samsung and escrow flows [on Nick Telford-Reed - due 2016-01-14].

- MattS will inform volunteers when a flow is ready for review

- MattS and Manu will chat about documenting evaluations

- Second flow we'll look at in refactoring is credit transfer

- we'll use terminology as resolved above

- Laurent, AdrianHB will work with MattS and TF on leveling as part of refactoring

scribe: and Vincent as well

WHO WISHES TO VOLUNTEER?

manu - credit card

<nicktr> nick will do PSP, general redirect, bitcoin

ian - 3DS

<AdrianHB> adrianhb - 3DS

<dlongley> dlongley - PayPal

<AdrianHB> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/49

AdrianHB and Matt will work on how to document who has volunteered

AdrianHB: We could even use more specific labels like "flow review'

Issue management

AdrianHB: I spent a bit of time thinking about this over the vacation
... some ideas are experimental (e.g., "action" label) ... others based on what other WGs are doing and W3C Team guidance

<AdrianHB> http://www.w3.org/2015/Talks/1217-github-w3c/#19

AdrianHB: see the presentation by PLH
... W3C is building some nice tooling that integrates well with github
... e.g., a dashboard

shepazu: I'm working on a dashboard thing...I'm hoping to be done early next week
... let's chat

<AdrianHB> I was forking: https://github.com/w3c/webperf-dashboard

shepazu: uses some JS to query Apis and dump data on a page
... That's what I'm doing as well..I'm working with PLH to get it working

AdrianHB: I will do nothing further then until I hear from you
... So we will be using github to make progress on our issues list

<manu> That's probably because we are not making progress on the issue list we have :P

AdrianHB: on the one hand I want to say "let's be patient as we have proposals that are still being iterated"
... it may be frustrating to not have decisions yet
... but the discussions are already driving changes to the proposals
... doing the proposals is helping us to surface the questions
... so my proposal is that we continue to capture big questions in the issues list
... we tag them as questions (I have a "milestone" of our next call)...if you think that an issue is ready to be discussed in a call either because there's a proposal that is likely to get consensus, or it needs discussion for other reason, we can look at the tags and build the agenda
... so please "label something as a question" and add a milestone for discussion

https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/How-the-Working-Group-works

IJ: Has this been documented yet?

AdrianHB: Not yet

<nicktr> +1

IJ: Please put in the how we work page as "proposed"

AdrianHB: Will do

Next meeting

21 January

- DRAFT -

Web Payments Working Group Teleconference

07 Jan 2016

Attendees

Contents

Welcome back!

Flows

Using the Flows

Issue management

Next meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output