Web Payments Interest Group Teleconference
01 Jul 2016

<Ian> Meeting: Web Payments Interest Group FTF meeting

<scribe> scribe: manu

<Ian> but yes

<Ryladog> Present

Welcome

David Ezell welcomes everyone, goes over meeting details.

dezell: Welcome, I co-chair this group, here representing NACS - we want to save our member merchants money. This is a very important activity for me, personally.

wseltzer: Wendy, Tech and Society Domain Lead overseeing this work.

mountie: Mountie Lee, Paygate.

Jeff Jaffe and Alan Bird introduce themselves. Followed by Erik Anderson, Bloomberg. Amy Zirkle, Electronic Transaction Association. Patrick Adler, US Fed Chicago - involved in a variety of Web Payments activity - broad interest in payments space.

<Ryladog> Katie Haritos-Shea, Accessibility Liaison to WAI

Linda Toth- Connexxus, affiliated with NACS.

Ken from American Express

Fahsi Assab - BlueSnap - global payment gateway - remove friction from checkout experience.

Kiara Robels with Blockstream.

scribe: with Common Accord - open source law

Chris Meadow? Consumer identity stuff?

Ian: Staff contact for the group - here in Chicago - couldn't travel - participating remotely - would like to be available - apologies that I couldn't be there.

dezell: This is going to be difficult because there is an echo in here.

Ian: Due to the echo, it may be difficult for me to directly participate.

dezell: Want to refresh committment wrt. what we said we wanted to do - going to go through relatively quickly, after brief review.
... We asked about topics in front of us - items that we wanted to lead - once we have those things in hand, I have a theory of what I think our mission for the coming months should be. It's open to discussion - at any point in here, any question - if you want, type q+ in IRC to be called on.

dezell goes to slides.

<Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Jul/att-0000/IG-mission.pdf

dezell: Existing vision/mission - what we've done, what we'd like to be doing - progress questionnaire, as part of that, I asked if people would want to champion topic.
... Mission realization is trying to see if we agree on direction - process for IG - Erik, Ian, and I have talked wrt. process.
... We want to identify the immediate work areas, champions for each area, being tracking work in each area.
... Existing mission - it's in our charter - develop use cases / requirements - establish common ground - the IG has done a good job doing that amongst itself, but we may not have been successful at doing this outside of our group.
... Uptake - industry relations - working w/ colleagues at ISO, X9, and other regional authorities. Competition and innovation - we've touched on, handed that part of our mission off to WG.
... Moving on to mission - going through vision statement...
... Unencumbered knowledge - wallet...
... Improve user experience - Web Payments WG is doing a pretty good job at that. Good on that.
... Wide spectrum of security/privacy needs - not security experts. We care a great deal about that - engage with other work.
... Encapsulate existing schemes - WG does a good job of that - encourage efficient settlement .
... Compliance with legal/reg compliance - ongoing
... Enable monetization, on track to do that...
... Bridging distributed value networks - not much progress there.
... Are there things about our vision that need to be adjusted? Things are dynamic, changing a lot
... Let's just into the questtionaire

Analysis of questionnaire

dezell: There is a scorecard for what we've been working on - things from our charter that we've been tracking...
... This time Chairs/Staff wouldn't rate - the participants would rate.
... Looking at general feedback
... Too busy, role changed, but no one is saying the subject doesn't interest me.
... Not much here that spells out a change for us... work underway for extensions to digital marketing - loyalty/coupons, invoices, receipts, liason with external payment activities.
... regulatory concerns - important for this group.
... Digital marketing/loyalty - how does digital offers, coupons, offers work - half had high interest

jeff: The gaps are an opportunity.

dezell: We've been floating on this one, a bit of indecision, we have time this afternoon to dig in.
... These are on the Web, I did not attribute the statements to folks.
... Invoices/receipts - ecommerce concerns - very important, but we didn't do as well.
... We had a focus on Boletos - used in Brazil, don't know if IG need...

fahzi: What defines success from an IG perspective?

dezell: Good question, success from WG can take multiple forms - there is not just one type of project in the WG - one of the things we have been unsure of... we want to create standards, we have a champion, use cases, socialize, create new charter, probably the gold standard for what we do. Web Payments WG, this is how we got there. There is a second tier, we may do some socialization / use cases, but not charter and hand off.
... Our existing WG may benefit - worst case, we call our friends elsewhere and say we need something (at ISO, etc.)
... ISO20022 is a tracking project, aligning vocabulary across all the ways people talk about them - don't necessarily have an endpoint, don't create a document, each of these things can fall into one of those categories.
... Moving to Liason slides - there is a gap between importance and how well we could do
... X9 and ISO are a strange case, they work in private, we have liason status with them, not easy for examination - not something the IG can do. We struggle with this for a little bit, it stays important to people.
... It's important to have regular report outs, we expect PSD2 to report out later... regulatory concerns - same sort of doubt, requires expertise, we've done light studying on, haven't really dived in.

christopherAllen: What about the "being too US focused" - seemed like it didn't track other things (about liason w/ US-focused stuff)

<jeff> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Jul/att-0000/IG-mission.pdf

christopherAllen: The one at the bottom, non-US focus, that didn't seem to be addressed in the survey

dezell: The answer has to do with PSD2 - we have fairly good European representation - but I take your point.

ChristopherAllen: Personally, I think we're too US-focused, too first-world focused, coming from international perspective... African nations doing payments on phones, Indian nations as well, etc.

dezell: We don't even know what they are.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about response rate

<jeff> Manu: We have 160 members in IG

<jeff> ... only 14 responded to survey

<jeff> ... this is good data, but we need to poke other members

<jeff> ... we should prompt more responses

<jeff> ... We also need to discuss participation rate

<jeff> ... WG sucked some participation from IG

<jeff> ... how do we refill our ranks?

dezell: Interesting question - should recruitment be a dedicated topic? We rely heavily on Alan/Ian to do that work.

padler: One of the things I see - we don't proactively who is missing from the table and go out and get those orgs to the table. If we need to get folks from India, Africa here - we don't move as fast towards those goals.

mountie: I have a low participation because of the Web Payments WG - there is a reason for this

dezell: Only so many hours in the day. I did reach out to other IGs, I've heard similar stories - sometimes IGs don't meet but every two months.
... We've been doing this a bit better, ongoing challenge to continue to reach out - there are a lot of people that thing this work is really important

jeff: I don't think that the interest is as bleak as is being described - W3C ran an outreach event for our work in Web Payments about a month and a half ago in Paris - I spoke at that conference, you could think of it as an IG meeting - lots of folks talking about work - 70 people showed up. There is lots of interest, we need to shepherd it a bit better.

dezell: I have a couple of ideas on how to do that.

padler: There is tremendous interest in this - we need to create more of a structure in the group.

dezell: Suggestions for potential topics - the numbers are number of people that said they'd champion this topic - summary slide on this.

Mahesh: I work for Samsung - a block away from here, representing Samsung, going to be joining the IG as well.

AdrianHB: Adrian from Ripple

ChristopherA: Christopher Allen from Blockstream

Katie: Katie, I work on accessibility for Web Payments Activity - (scribe can't hear due to heavy echo in room)

<jeff> W3C Web payments out reach event in Paris --> http://cantonconsulting.eu/en/consulting/pic-w3c-web-payments-and-commerce-paris-2016-05-19

dezell: Digital Wallet Frameworks - 3 champions willing to lead work - any work on this topic may result in new use cases, new Working Group, probably not - WG will just consider those use cases.
... standardizing transaction contents - more said they want to focus on this, no one wanted to champion

jheuer: People have a hard time locating themselves within the big topic. I want to see wallet framework - if we take the topic seriously, about user control, protecting privacy - things that are required, tell the politicians how it can be done in digital, that's something that the IG could go for to close that gap. In many cases, we're focusing on specific company goals rather than more general things. Integrating identity in some way, I'd rather go towards that

than avoid. I recognized that in coming to this group.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk about first world problems and to mention standardization of transaction contents.

<jeff> Manu: Some wanted to work on 3rd world problems

<jeff> ... were thrown out. Instead working on shopping carts

<jeff> ... not a bad idea, but meanwhile we lost the other folks.

<jeff> ... we need to translate our work for its impact

<jeff> ... Understand why we are working on 1st world problems, but we have the ability to work on other problems as well.

<jeff> ... but WG will stay focused on first world problems

<jeff> ... so the concern is to translate our work for the WG

<ChristopherA> +q

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to get some more clarity on what problems are being ignored

AdrianHB: By the time the WG was chartered, the IG goals were lost - there were goals around financial inclusion - not clear what those things are that are not being solved by the WG.

<jeff> Manu: Example is the IG architecture

<jeff> ... WG kinda threw it away

<jeff> ... now we are back-translating the architecture

ChristopherA: I have a process question - as I understand it, a charter was made - one of the things that an IG does is seed the charter for one or more WGs, is that correct.
... If the process is such that we can't have some of the things in the Web Payments WG, we create another group that does work on these items?

dezell: This is a hard problem - IG oversees activity that oversees work - this is a new work item. What we don't have is a process of review where the IG can judge what's going on.

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on Manu's point.

dezell: one of the topics I'd like to introduce is a regular review of what the WG is doing - that sort of review is important, we just handed the work off to the WG - we haven't reviewed what they've been doing.

jeff: Talking a bit about what's going on - if we're missing something in terms of identifying scope which is relevant to the developing world, shame on us and lets fix that. Let's not look backwards on how we got here and find specific tangible things and move on.
... As far as having the IG review the WG, the best way to do that is for IG participants to participate in the Working Group.

<Ian> +1

jeff: The best way to influence is to be in the WG.

dezell: This is a topic of interest that is always in the IG.

AmyZ: I'd be interested to hear what's going on in the Working Group - would be good to have an update.

dezell: By knowing what's going on - we have some way of effecting that.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to speak to architecture point

Ian: Comment on patterns that we've seen now that the WG is making progress, the WG is looking at topics in more detail than the IG. There is an emerging picture of how components will fit together. The WG is hammering that out, I hope it becomes more clear. It's not something the IG could have done a-priori. The architecture of the Web is something that was documented a decade after it was created.
... We need a strong understanding of use cases from the industry, the first set of use cases, we picked 10 or so that became the foundation of the WG. That was the thing we proposed to membership that we were going to work on. We haven't gone back to use cases, augmented them, to understand capabilities that are suggested by use cases, so that process - how can we get better at doing that - it suggests to me that there is more work to do, more high-level underst

anding.

Ian: I wouldn't have gone into a lower level architecture than that. We don't need to understand that in more detail.

dezell: We want to be cognizant of doing a better job of communicating w/ our colleagues.

<ChristopherA> +q

padler: One thing that's interesting to me, just because other IGs and other WGs have worked, the payments space is changing very quickly, my concern from an IG perspective, we need to tighten the feedback loop. We spawned a WG, we get a broad perspective, we are able to influence - interesting that there is not a WG update topic - very important, space is changing quickly, feedback loop between IG and WG. We'll have a big mess.

AdrianHB: This is not a defense of the WG, I don't think there's been any intent in the WG to ignore intent from the IG - presence of certain features in the WG work is not an absence of other things. I don't think focus on checkout prevents us from working on third world problems, if the concern is that we're not focused on those use cases, or that we're compromising the architecture, then that should be explicitly raised.
... If IG wants to raise that bigger vision is being compromised, that needs to happen so WG can respond.

ChristopherA: As I understand the process, part of the whole point of a task force, it appears, delivers something, and is gone. Is there enough interest for us to have task force for inclusivity in third world, deliver something in 3-6 months, then quit - that might be an option here. It's an important thing. I'm not even putting on my cryptocurrency hat, there are another set of things that are going on there.

dezell: Maybe this is an action to me to try to get more information on how to create this thing... anyone else that wants to talk about it - don't have it in my head enough to say what to do.

<scribe> ACTION: dezell to talk to Christopher about emerging nation problems. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-181 - Talk to christopher about emerging nation problems. [on David Ezell - due 2016-07-08].

wseltzer: From a W3C perspective, thank you for the IG to help kick off WPWG work - from process/continuing work - best way to influence work is to participate directly, if process is working poorly, how could we make it better, more inclusive - we care about global/international scope - we look at that and that's always an important component of the work. it takes on its own life as Working Group, best way to influence is to participate...

jeff: Web Payments WG is having a meeting in London next week.

dezell: I'm going to fast-forward to where I think what we should do.
... Hope to have a minute or two on agile processes - give everyone a bit of a chance to tie these processes together.
... Most important next steps - alternative payment flows
... digital wallet frameworks, existing security/best practices, trusted UI is next
... Two votes for mobile/proximity
... This particular topic is the only one that Alibaba has focused on

wseltzer: re trusted UI, Hardware-Based Secure Services CG is looking at that as part of a transaction confirmation use case

erik: There is X9 mandates coming out that requires TrustedUI

dezell: Continued work on Roadmap, but only one vote, but one of most important things we can work on.

<mountie> +1 for TrustedUI

dezell: Mission realization - resharpen communications that's number one.
... There are people that misunderstand what we're doing.
... Make sure our roadmap/vision statement tells a story that we're really telling.

<Padler> Recruitment should be added to realization topics as this will require resources/time but is important

dezell: PSD2, roadmap capabilities - ongoing topics - not standardization topics - based on questionnaire results - we continue verifiable claims, ecommerce, ILP
... Champions for Alternative Payment flows, digital wallet, proximity
... Liason activities - need to continue those.
... Linda can help - that's my strawlist of priorities.

Mountie: Can we add TrustedUI to candidate topics.

<AdrianHB> +1

<mountie> add Trusted UI to candidateds topics

<AdrianHB> +1 to Mountie based on IG feedback

<Padler> +1 to recruitment

erik: TC68 is all financial services - data security, identity, privacy fest - that's been plaguing financial services, we're having a lot of similar talks there

Faouzi: What are proximity payment flows?

dezell: Think of Google Payment and Samsung Pay - contactless payments - how can you use a QRCode interface to trigger certain types of things in the payment flow... enhancements, not really a change.

<Padler> For consideration later, it would be interesting to discuss out of band verification of payment (eg. confirm via mobile device) use cases

dezell: Activity Targets - new charters, new use cases for existing WGs - use our blog more effectively - we don't have people maintaining new wiki pages - capabilities document needs to come back. These things are where the goodies land, new charters, use cases.
... A review of what we put on the wiki as next steps...
... Case study in how process worked - Verifiable Claims Task Force - tracking progress on what happens after this point is what IG could do next.
... For items that are non-standards related, this flow or other flow - agile process.

jeff: A number of people have interacted in the conversation - there are folks that are new to the IG - give new folks an opportunity to ask questions.

Faouzi: When you find an interest group - how do they operate?

dezell: We call them a Task Force, the Task Force has a champion - they work on something, they set the rest of the agenda. Champion drives most of it, pulls volunteers.

<Magda> present

Faouzi: What's the output of that Task Force?

<Padler> PROPOSAL: rename tracking to engagement process.... There have been several suggestions to attend and influence other work which is broader than watching or tracking the work

Faouzi: The Champion takes stuff - who proposes the WG?

dezell: Task Force does different things... depends on what they want to do.

Ken: I wanted to thank W3C staff from getting American Express involved.

Ken: The one thing I see from my perspective, my organization, there is an accelerated amount of regulatory activity - happening in a number of fast moving markets.
... What we're seeing is a similarity in what they're doing - they're talking w/ each other on an informal basis - they don't have a place to go to talk about this stuff.

<Evgeny> Evgeny Vinogradov, Yandex

Ken: What we're seeing is for the first time, the way they're going about international activity is use payment information for anti-terrorism activities...

<Magda> Magda Sypula, Apple

Ken: We think innovation is great and we want to be supportive, but as a manager of a very old, stable network - being supportive of new networks, helping them when they get to a point of scale... take Kenya for example, if you want to go from national to international, how do you get them there?
... How do you get governments at an international level - what amount of interaction from government is desired.

<Magda> *thankful for scribes*

dezell: We should be looking at that stuff - IG can publish notes - it's entirely possible that we could make findings as an IG.

erik: A lot of the IGs issues have been process oriented - important topic - would like to change the process into a more agile target. We need to be as agile as possible.

dezell: Are the list of things that we put up there good? Any objections to what it ooks like?

padler: A couple of tweaks in the IG channel

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to ask chair to repeat the question

Ian: A couple of comments on slide 43 - some of the ISO20022 Harmonization work is actively going on - hammering out details about terminology - that is where the work should live right now. Once terms have stabilized, could be brought back into the IG.
... Participation in WG and bring it back to IG - ILP feels like IG work is inactive, but ILP is happening in CG - previous agreement w/ Adrian was for ILP CG to come back to IG with it.
... We're aware of ILP, but we don't have a role today for ILP. Whereas with ecommerce, we could tease out topics - I know that we have candidates on topics, don't understand them in depth yet.

padler: It's critical we figure out how to engage as IG as active development of next generation standards as well.

mountie: The IGs role, spin off - don't touch details - mission is to touch on higher level issues.

dezell: During our closing today, we should spend some time talking more deeply about how topics can be applied more deeply in process and work on agile tenets. We can do that during wrap up.
... Let's take 15 minutes, apologies for running over, technical difficulties.

<Magda> *what time is the next session starting?*

<Magda> 10:45?

<jeff> Magda, 15 minutes

<Alan> 15 minute break -so figure 10:45 - correct

<cwilso> Is there a phone number/code for this meeting?

<cwilso> (i.e. not just a webex URL)

<cwilso> (Thanks Ian! For reference: +1-617-324-0000 US Toll Number

<cwilso> Access code: 645 339 133)

<Ian> they were breaking until :45 I think

Verifiable claims

<jeff> scribenick: jeff

Slides -- > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mL0MsPpdxdKiYFWVIyGVOFzypBsjylxepACN2MYw-yg/edit#slide=id.p

<manu> Verifiable Claims Working Group Proposal Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mL0MsPpdxdKiYFWVIyGVOFzypBsjylxepACN2MYw-yg/edit#slide=id.p

David: Task force has been ongoing for a while
... question for the IG - what to do next?

<manu> Verifiable Claims Working Group Proposal: https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/

<Magda> *webex is -eh, not worse than before*

<Magda> *okay there's definitely more echo*

<jeff_> Introductions from webex

<jeff_> Matt Stone

<jeff_> Richard Varn

<jeff_> Mike Champion

<jeff_> Chris Wilson

<jeff_> Dave Longley

<jeff_> DaveE: Welcome everybody

<jeff_> scribenick: Patrick

<Magda> *can we get a mic closer to Manu?*

<Padler_> Scribenick: padler

<Magda> *better*

<stone> last few seconds improved.

<Padler_> Manu: Goals for today

<Padler_> Status update

<Padler_> Demonstrate support for a working group

<Padler_> Manu: reviewing organizations participating in surveys'Vic task force...

<Padler_> Manu: indicating diversity of participants, 85 total organizations participating in work...

<Padler_> Manu: reviewing problem and mission...

<Padler_> difficult to transmit and manage personal information such as claims today..

<Padler_> Manu: ex. Includes bank account information, prof of age, education qualification, etc..

<Padler_> Manu: explaining process that VC task force went through to revise terminology..

<Padler_> Manu: mission: making expressing, exchanging claims on the web easier

<Padler_> Manu: 52 organizations agree with problem and mission goals...

<Padler_> Manu: Discussing scope of the VC charter

<wseltzer> [slide 6]

<Padler_> This proposal includes syntaxes and data model... Not in scope Browser API's and exchange protocols

<Padler_> Manu: describing key pieces of verifiable claims: Subject Identifier, Claims about subject, Claims meta-data, digital signature of issuer of claim

<Padler_> 49 organizations agree with scope /deliverables

<Ian> Charter

<Padler_> Jeff: is there a pointer to proposed charter?

<Padler_> Manu: reviewing VC working documents

<Padler_> Includes Primer, Charter, Use Cases, FAQ, Architecture document, implementer commitments, etc..

<Padler_> Manu: Proposal includes all documents...

<Padler_> Manu: Explaining that there is a broader architecture...

<Padler_> And several key participants: Issuer, Holder, Inspector, Identifier Registry

<Padler_> Issuers issue claims

<Padler_> Holders acquire claimed

<Padler_> Inspectors request Claims

<Padler_> Registry maintains identifiers

<Padler_> Manu: reviewing use cases, data model and representations and other documentation

<Ryladog_> Note that in the Verifiable Claims DRAFT Charter, under 5.1 W3C Groups - that the 'Protocols and Formats Working Group (and successor)' can go ahead and be changed to 'Accessible Platform Architectures (APA)' officially.....:-)

<Padler_> Manu: reviewing incubation timeline....

<Padler_> From 2012 to current work has progressed from Web Payments CG to Credentials CG to Web Payments Interest Group/VC task force...

<Padler_> Task force focus dug into deep detail on various dimensions of verifiable claims...

<Padler_> Manu: Reviewing concerns...

<Padler_> Concerns raised during incubation process ranged across a number of dimensions, which have influenced evolution of charter and related materials.

<Padler_> Manu: reviewing traction with organzations...

<Padler_> From 11 organizations in 2014 to 49 organizations in 2016

<Padler_> Jeff: do breadth of commitments cover breadth of topic area?

<Padler_> Jeff: 6 industries were covered, I looked into healthcare, which has some unique characteristics to it... Speaking about referrals, wondering if there is a use case there for referrals...

<Padler_> Jeff: if the breadth of commitment enough to cover commitments to cover entire space...

<Padler_> Manu: no, however we have broad range of use cases and have been trying to focus resources on data format and syntax so that other industries could build own vocabularies on top of Verifiable Claims as needed

<dezell> ?

<ChristopherA> +q

<shepazu> (This seems a bit like XML… it's a low-level framework for others to make expressions)

<Padler_> Jeff: is the proposal to standardize core framework? Or specific industries...

<Padler_> Manu: Goal is to provide a pluggable framework for industries to plug in...

<Padler_> Doug S: like xml... Many organizations have built on top of this...

<Padler_> Chris A; Want to reinforce the good work that the group has done to keep the scope focused to core building block for communicating claims without impeding other work...

<shepazu> (Not that I think the scope or necessary effort is similar to XML, just the analogy to the level of abstraction and reusability)

<Padler_> Wendy: Thanks for the work done to narrow the scope. I see the current scope as signed data structure... Do we need a security review on this given the focus?

<Padler_> Manu: we have had some security review, but would need deeper inspection. This is where WG could focus to do deeper review... It is absolutely needed

<shepazu> (I like how the charter mentions later supporting infrastructure, thinking ahead, but also focuses on the most immediate effort)

<jeff_> +1 doug

<Padler_> Wendy: Wonder if some of the pushback is due to scope beyond broad applicability of focus areas, does it make sense to focus on a particular sector?

<Padler_> Manu: we could do that, but there was pushback from industries that would be neglected by focusing on just a single segment...

<Padler_> Mountie: Is there a browser API in scope?

<shepazu> (I wonder if Wendy's concern could be addressed by rewording the background and context to show "concentric circles" of context… "we're focused on case A, but this may grow to be applicable to self-sovereign identity, case B, case C, etc. in later work; this lays the foundation for future work")

<Padler_> Manu: No...

<Padler_> Manu: we specifically scoped it down to lower layer to be protocol agnostic...

<Padler_> Could be implementations of those things later...

<Padler_> Mountie: How flexible is the format?

<Padler_> Manu: Proposal is syntax agnostic...

<Padler_> Could be expressed via JSON, JSON-LD, XML, etc.... Goal is to make this modular...

<mchampion> The problem with the "foundation for future work" argument is that you never know whether a model will work for higher level APIs (e.g. browsers) or broader horizontal scenarios until you actually implement. Successful standards generally come behind implementations and factor out what is common, t

<Padler_> Mountie: Are there implementations without Digital Signatures?

<Padler_> Manu: yes.. These would just be claims

<Padler_> Erik: There are massive security concerns in FS today... But that is with ALL information...

<ChristopherA> +q

<Padler_> Erik: Emphasizing modularity of approach needed to adapt to other standards such as ISO... This work has to start somewhere...

<jeff_> Pat: Abstracting something modular for different industries

<jeff_> ... VC is a building block for other industries

<jeff_> ... we'll talk about financial stuff this afternoon which relies on this

<jeff_> ... important for healthcare as well

<jeff_> ... we don't want industry stovepipes

<jeff_> ... like that you are starting with modular building blocks

<jeff_> ... we need this before we progress on industry specific

<jeff_> ... here standard first - then implement

<jeff_> Jeorg: I've been supporting even if I have not participated much

<jeff_> ... you will never find a regulation that says it confirms to some technology

<jeff_> ... In Germany; with EID; it is not connected to Internet

<jeff_> ... cumbersome. people don't accept it.

<Padler_> Jorg: In Germany, complicated situation with EID, it is not connected to the Internet...

<jeff_> scribenick: Pat

<Padler_> Jorg: you can't go to Financial Industry today for this...

<Padler_> Chris A: This is not a protocol, or a cryptographic format, or an identity...

<Magda> +1 to Chris comments on security/privacy

<Padler_> Chris A: I need this building block to be solid so that I can build cryptographic signatures and protocols on top of this...

<Padler_> Chris A: This is a fundamental model for other work to progress...

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask MikeC, Chris, and Magda about their thoughts

<Padler_> Manu: inviting phone participants to comment...

<Padler_> Manu: 2 organizations pushed back and Manu would be interested if changes to proposal helped address concerns.

<Padler_> Mike C: Engineers from Identity and Security have reviewed...

<Padler_> ... Use Cases are interesting... But we do not support development at this time...

<Wseltzer_> jwt

<Padler_> ... More interested in JWT...

<Padler_> .... From a process perspective, this needs to be implemented first to inform what should be standardized...

<dlongley> the proposal is agnostic with respect to JOSE and includes JWT examples in the proposed specification (http://opencreds.org/specs/source/claims-data-model/)

<Padler_> Manu: specific to concerns around JWT.... In the proposed charter there are examples of JWT based signatures...

<Padler_> Mike: There are examples, but there are not working implementations of that today that I am aware of...

<dlongley> (perhaps cart before horse ... need to work on that in the WG once it begins)

<Ian> (IJ wonders if Manu could speak a bit about the test implementations)

<Padler_> Manu: We do not believe this is competitive with JWT... there are active pilots of the technology... This is not theoretical... And there has been active incubation of working code

<Padler_> Mike: This feels like the standard has come first and then the working group

<Padler_> Chris W: I want to second Mike's concern around overlap...

<Padler_> But want to talk about incubation generally...

<Padler_> Chris W.... I think you have done a good job exploring the use cases, but would like to see more detail on the actual incubated code so that we can evaluate that...

<Padler_> ... Not how many companies have participated...

<Padler_> ... There is a cost to getting the semantic model wrong given the effort required to standardize/implement...

<Padler_> ... How is this being incubated and developed and tested... So that we can see the model working in practice...

<dlongley> this approach is following the same approach that the current payments WG is following ... there have been many ways that people have created checkout experiences and the WPWG is currently teasing out what's common there; there have been many people that have attempted to represent verifiable information and this WG would tease out what's common.

<Padler_> ... Overwhelming concern is that it is tough to get semantic model right without seeing it in practice....

<Padler_> Manu: are you asking us to put attribute exchange and example API implementation in the charter? Others have asked us to take that out...

<Padler_> Manu: Web Payments WG, which was highest voted working group, did not have the same level of rigor or incubation.... So it feels like the goal posts are being moved...

<Padler_> Chris: We did consider voting against Web Payments working group...

<mchampion> I agree that the Web Payments WG is an example of going on the standards track before thorough incubation

<Padler_> Magda: From our perspective this is important work and it needs to move forward..

<shepazu> (the Web Payments WG _was_ incubated for years… if the browser makers weren't involved, isn't that their responsibility to prioritize resources to important work in a timely way?)

<Padler_> Magda: Need to apply use cases as we go to ensure work develops in a productive way...

<Padler_> Magda: wanted to express support for this effort

<Padler_> Difficult to hear Richard... Please type into IRC..

<ChristopherA> Still can't hear

<Erik2> +1 To Magda. JWT will not work

<Erik2> I agree, its not the same

<dlongley> Richard: We are one of the pilots you mentioned, we strongly support this work, we need it.

<Padler_> Matt: Support organizations granting credentials to individuals in the industry...

<Padler_> Matt: Very much in favor of extending this in the ecosystem to deal with a number of issues in that space

<Padler_> David: We should open the floor... To have opportunity to make statement and have poll to understand what to do next...

<Padler_> David E: Have been at w3c a long time and have rarely seen an effort that has been so well prepared.... While this will likely evolve moving forward, this is important from a payments perspective...

<Padler_> ... We should move this forward to the AC

<Padler_> Erik: If the AC does not vote yes, I will take this to other standards orgs

<ChristopherA> +q

<Padler_> Erik: I doubted, but tried to find something to meet these needs and could not... This is important to move forward

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to discuss some unique aspects of this work ito of incubation before striving for interop

<Padler_> Adrian: Wanted to make a point about incubation...

<Padler_> ... And to re-emphasize Chris' point that we need a canonically defined format up front to consider long term interoperability...

<Padler_> Adrian: Supportive of forming a working group

<Padler_> Chris A: This is not about protocols... We have to have this as a foundation for work to come forward... It will happen and if not at W3C it will happen elsewhere...

<Padler_> Chris A; I don't want to do this without W3C but will go forward regardless...

<Padler_> Erik: This is a building block..

<Ryladog_> Knowbility supports the creation of a Verifiable Claims Working Group for reason related to claims related for disability related purposes, accessibility certification purposes - as well as all the other uses proved by other here at today's meeting.

<dezell> Patrick: I support the work. It's a critical part of what we need. The semantic model is important to our work.

<dezell> Patrick: especially for payments, but also for other vertical interactions on the web.

<dezell> Patrick: there is a risk that if this doesn't happen at W3C, it may happen some place less optimal.

<Padler_> Wendy: There are various levels we could do the work...

<dezell> Wendy: there are levels where we could do the work.

<Padler_> Smallest level is a signed data object... Which does not include identity...

<dezell> Wendy: e.g. we could have a signed data object without the rest of the implied infrastructure.

<dezell> Wendy: what is proposed makes to many references to external things for me to feel comfortable.

<Padler_> ... The Charter still has too many references to identity... And we have seen too many efforts to fix the identity challenge and we are not well positioned to tackle that large problem...

<Padler_> ... Perhaps we should focus on evolving JWT to build up to larger identity infrastructure... If that worked and others built upon it, then we could discuss...

<Padler_> ... standards are more than a technical challenge, it is also political, and economics... Etc... While I am hearing interest, I am not sure how we would do this...

<Padler_> Manu: Can you propose specific changes to the proposal? Also, we are trying very hard to avoid identity... This is about verifying claims...

<Padler_> Doug: Just spent 2 days a blockchain workshop and believe this has some strong synergies with topics discussed there...

<Padler_> ... This would be good building block to helping work in that space as well... If we can break this down into small building blocks, we can provide something useful...

<Padler_> David: Propose to try to make a resolution...

<Padler_> PROPOSAL: This IG will propose submission of the Verifiable Claims WG to the W3M

<dlongley> +1

<AdrianHB> +1

<mountie> +1

<stone> +1

<Padler_> +1

<Erik2> +1

<manu> +1

<Magda> +1

<dezell> +1

<mchampion> -1

<ChristopherA> +1

<dezell> katie: +1

<wseltzer> [I won't vote, but don't support]

<Ryladog_> +1

<jheuer> +1

<mchampion> The record should show that Google would have voted -1

<ltoth> +1

<Padler_> Amy Zirkle +1

<kiaraRobles> +1

<manu> Richard Varn from ETS would have voted +1 as well

<Padler_> Manu: Should we allow 1 week for broader group to vote...

<Padler_> Jeff: Don't know that we needs an extra step...

<wseltzer> [All technical resolutions made by a meeting of the group are provisional until two weeks after being published to the mailing list. An objection made on the mailing list within two weeks of publishing a decision has the same standing as if it were made at the meeting.

<wseltzer> ]

RESOLUTION: This IG will propose submission of the Verifiable Claims WG to the W3M

<Padler_> Wendy: Decisions are provisional for 2 weeks following vote..

<dezell> ACTION: David to send email on Resolution. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> 'David' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dbaron, dezell2, djackso3, dlehn, dmnicol, dsinger2).

<Magda> * I have to drop off for the day after lunch*

<stone> dropping off.

<stone> thanks all!

Blockchain workshop summary

<dezell> scribenick: dezell

Doug: at the workshop we explored where there might be primitives or APIs that are useful in creating W3C standards.

<mountie> link of Doug's?

Doug: for those who weren't there, a blockchain is an immutable resource. A secure write only database.
... Our workshop was about the "non-money" uses of blockchain.
... we convened a group of 25 experts, and a lot of great contributors. Christopher Allen was a substantial contributor to the workshop.
... we addressed the following topics: identity, provenance, primitives/APIs, and kitchen sink
... for each we had lightening talks, followed by discussion.
... this set of topics is perhaps not indicative of everything people are discussion vis-a-vis blockchain, but the list is representative of interests of those at the meeting.
... Question: how can blockchain add features to the web?
... the keynote was from Arvind Narayanan.

<ChristopherA> The 8 slides are at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/s2VKLXnjGMvHYiTMVeaxehOsh2z235E6pJLOFeuvme89wOzXlsvWaUbJGs7PxCp1/file?dl=1

Doug: in primitives and APIs, one interesting idea was taking Chromium - let's fork the browser, and scratch the existing web security model and start from scratch with a new security model.
... Call this a prototyping approach.

<ChristopherA> Does this work better? https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0dbtmfs1mp7d79/W3C%20Blockchain%20Workshop%20June%2029%2C%202016.pdf?dl=0

Doug: During the workshop, people voted on topics as: committed to it, want to see it happen, and warning.

(see the link above for the topics)

scribe: IPLD is speaks to relationships between things.
... Proof and Verification speaks to provenance.
... and LIBP2P speaks to how computers can speak frankly with each other regardless of firewalls, etc.

ChristopherA: for instance, you may want to declare that tab A in a given browser wants to talk to a tab B is an other browser.

Doug: and there was surprising will to work within W3C.

Manu: it was a good view of topics not typical of payments discussions. Nonetheless there are numerous opportunities for payment.

Doug: I think we specifically asked that people not talk about payment.
... we may have another such meeting on the west coast later this year.
... we can focus more on specific issues at those meetings.

ChristopherA: I think people did specifically not talk about payments.
... we just gave positive feedback. BlockchainID Auth are interested in moving over to how VC does things.
... IPLD will use acyclic graphs much on the VC model.
... Proof and Verification (provenance) want's to work compatibly with VC.
... Smart Signatures as well.
... We're looking for ways to give findings more quickly than formal recommendations.

Doug: there are use cases, informal reports, and other ways.

Christopher: SSL was 3 months to an initial draft, then 3 years to a more approval.

<manu> dezell: I noticed that Interledger fell in the crack on the diagram, it's definitely a payment topic.

<manu> dezell: Interledger did leave an impression.

<manu> AdrianHB: It's an existing effort - it is a W3C Community Group.

Adrian HB: we had some very useful conversations as a result of the workshop.

Magda: what was the concern about long gestation.

Christopher: we just need a way to get things out sooner.

Jim: my observation is that the blockchain community is being domesticated.

<Magda> *domesticated?*

<ChristopherA> Yes

Doug: the undercurrents of legal discussions were interesting.

<Magda> *How did this workshop come about?*

Jim: people are discovering that the legal underpinning is essential.

Mountie: at the workshop, money was out of scope, but for the IG it's a good ongoing discussion for the IG to have.

Doug: I'll get back to the IG about topics that might bear fruit.

Erik: I'd love to see the material on "provenance".

ChristopherA: the terminology is problematic. Proof of publication, proof of existence, chain of custody.
... also includes intellectual property rights, who owns what, and whether or not you're authorized for access.

<Magda> *thank you all*

<wseltzer> http://whereis.mit.edu/

Digital coupons and loyalty

<Ian> presentation by Linda Toth

<manu> scribenick: manu

<AdrianHB> scribenick: adrianhb

[Linda from Conexxus presenting]

[Describing agenda]

NACS and Conexxus are separate orgs. Conexxus does tech standards/dev and advocacy whereas NACS is more political

[Describing figures - slide 3]

Single store operators don't have dedicated IT resources

[Talking through figures on slide 4]

linda: Tobacco/Beer/PackBev and Centre store make up big percentage of sales
... convenience stores have more channels than their competitors combined
... typically c-stores (convenience) don't do coupons well
... coupons are part of planned shopping (whereas c-stores are used ad-hoc)
... no resources to do integrated coupon validation systems
... lots of onus on cashier to validate coupons

[dezell checking who is on phone]

linda: c-stores use promotions for loyalty
... eg: buy 1 get 1 free
... also offer method of payment discounts
... c-stores also have (often closed loop) loyalty programs
... something identifies shopper to loyalty host
... may be multi-partner
... loyalty done quite well in general by c-stores
... often prgarmmed into the POS system

padler: do you have loyalty where the identity is an org/family vs just individual

linda: mostly family or individual but we do have fleet systems
... set product restrictions etc not necessarily just loyalty
... nothing preventing org based loyalty
... consumer is changing
... typically time starved, mobile, always connected,
... want knowledge on demand
... seeking simplicity in an increasingly complex world
... [talking through slide 10 - personalized relevant shopping experiences]
... c-stores want to leapfrog to mobile based systems for offers/digital marketing to drive impulse buys which lends itself to c-store model
... @@@ has generated a first iteration of a digital coupon
... just a barcode marked as "digital"

[lifecycle slide - 13]

scribe: we won't focus on all aspects but need to note that all required for a working system
... validation is key to limit fraud
... e.g. is coupon valid (hasn't expired, met purchase conditions, etc) and is sale valid (no offers for alcohol to under age customers for example)

[Ecosystem view - slide 15]

scribe: broker/aggregator is optional participant
... typically a merchant would only deploy site-level or above-site not both
... long term we believe that apps are not the answer
... see the browser as good alternative

eric: agree that users don't want to download more apps

shepazu: agree, and this requires discovery of the app and then discovery of the offer

chrisallen: what happened to beacons like those in iOS

linda: we see them as a complimentary technology

dezell: we see these techs blossom as everyone tries to get in on this game. There are numerous triggers. This is why the IG has proximity payments on it's radar
... the coupon validation looks a lot like validating a claim

erik: the beacons are put in grocery carts ... [missed the rest]

linda: if we can expose a browser api then this would enable delivery via the browser

[car wash use case - #18]

scribe: note that for all these use cases there is an app used today but we would like this to be a web based system
... user buys the code on their phone but could do so over desktop

[Sequence diagram - #19]

[Sequence diagram 2 - #20]

middle block is conexxus spec

w3c scope is MPA to MPPA

[indoor use case]

[slide 22]

linda: [describes flow - slide 23]

<Ian> WEB CAPABILITY NEED: Geolocation (which we have)

<Ian> WEB CAPABILITY NEED: Clip to save (e.g., clip from web or email and save in payment app)

linda: interaction with user may result in multi-tender payment request (loyalty points + currency)

[Describing process to identify user location - conexxus standard]

scribe: purpose is to validate that the user is in the same place physically as the POS

chrisallen: many loyalty systems are used to collect user data, does that fit here?

linda: it could, typically there would be something on the phone that is passed to the site system
... to solve for friction sometimes we need to preload aspects of the ecosystem but this is hard to do
... challenge with settlement of the coupons

manu: whats the ideal comms flow for this?

linda: implementation specific. there is no preferred way

dezell: we have to support many
... what linda is showing is alt payment flows
... i.e. not always directly via merchant
... any way to cut out call-outs to thrid-party systems would be very welcome
... we are enticingly close in the WG to identifiying other points of interaction that could be standardized

ed: from merchant perspective settling from aggregator v. directly from the distributor is also a question of cost and settlement time

linda: [discussing option 2 - slide 27]

[outdoor use case - #28]

[talk through flow slides 29 -31]

[receipts] - diff countries have diff receipt reqs

chrisallen: how different is canada vs europe for example? Do you work with europe?

linda: we work with a sister org in europe to try and standardise globally
... lot of entities involved in producing reciept. Dont think we have time to delve too deeply into receipts today

dezell: are we talking about a proof of payment or a delivery when talking about receipts
... if we have terms that have the right abstraction then we can avoid terms that are tightly tied to use cases or a purpose

jheuer: what you use the receipt for can determine if it is a proof of payment or delivery/purchase. i.e. You can use a proof of payment to prove a purchase

manu: we have a part of the PaymentRequest API spec that allows for a list of items and we have heard that merchants don't want this data to be shared

will this be a flag for merchants?

linda: [ISO20022]
... there is a proposal to extend ISO20022 to add loyalty data
... [defining success - slide 36]

dezell: when talking about new payment methods like Bitcoin it's not clear who would incentivize people to use it

ian: thanks for preso. have been thinking about web capabilities required to enable what you have defined
... we have geolocation so that should help with the location req
... another req seems to be the ability to take an offer and clip it to use later
... we have some apis that payment app devs could use to solve this
... I see some sec reqs that you may have
... some other reqs that are outside scope like handling coupons

<Erik2> Ian, for location, they want "relative" location that only a beacon can provide. Like what isle in the store you are in, what the path through the store you walked.

ian: my suggestion is to determine the capabilities req to meet these use cases
... q to linda, are there any of these missing

linda: think we should standardize interaction between MPA and MPPA
... i.e. between MPA running in browser on the phone

<Ian> (please pass mic around)

<manu> AdrianHB: I wanted to comment on the line items thing - Manu made the comment that the API currently captures line item details - that's true.

<manu> AdrianHB: The line items details aren't passed beyond the browser.

<manu> AdrianHB: But that is being passed to the browser, the browser manufacturers could capture the information - proposals for that is line items might be subtotal, total, line item, etc.

<manu> AdrianHB: All control sits with merchant for what they do share. We are hopefully not put in the position where merchants have to share line item details.

jeff: q for linda or dezell
... I was under impression that there was a TF in the IG exploring coupons or ecomm
... what is the background to this preso

dezell: the tf was stalled so this is a detailed use case discussion to refresh the topic

jeff: so is the purpose of this to get some input to decide how to move forward

dezell: yes

chrisallen: seems like the IG's purpose is to define use cases and reqs and this is part of this

jeff: yes, but I had the impression we were already more mature

dezell: this is a reboot of that effort

manu: there is another type of digital offer which is simply an offer (not necessarily linked to loyalty)
... I assert that basic broadcast of this kind of offer is an important use case
... is that kind of offer part of the conexxus work?

linda: yes it could be. I didn't describe that use case but yes
... offers can be just pure info and marketing
... there may be uses cases for simply broadcasting pricing

dezell: it could be challenging to call out a payment use case if there is no money

manu: many merchants would likely like to put the purchase process directly in the discovery flow so the customer can buy something directly from a search result etc

linda: we have retailers that are creating virtual shopping baskets with pre-selected basket of goods

@@@: would a regulatory review be part of gathering the reqs? Who is responsible for delivering the reciept (there is a diff in fucntional and regualtory req to deliver) and the regulatory req is different per payment method

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about digital offers that are not coupons.

scribe: we are always trying to make things hands-free but regs often mean there is a need to offer stuff like receipts through additional channels etc

jheuer: [presents - couponing and loyalty for digital payment]
... our demo shows that a user can pick from coupons
... selection of coupon can be automated to reduce user friction
... can use contextual info like the identity of the store
... varying transfer options (such as optical like QR code)
... basic idea is that you can use same mechanism over all channels and browser is just one
... some insghts:
... - we don't want to deal with the complexities of the coupons themselves
... (very complex and many interactions involved)

[discussing slide "Coupons in the real world today"]

scribe: many use cases require you to indentify yourself (for interaction with a loyalty system)
... our approach is to allow the silos to exist but standardize around the usage pattern
... digital coupons are even more sophisticated (and complex) than paper
... introduce many options wrt channel delivery, redemption etc (QR code, NFC, etc)
... market testing has told us that users want coupons auto-applied but that conflicts with the motivations for issuing coupons (driving loyalty)
... copying coupons is obv easier with digital coupons so certain coupon types that must be unique have a requirement for a system to ensure validity
... vcf could help here
... loyalty is the same as other systems that require identity
... it simply has lower risk
... there are some programs where there value proposition is privacy
... identity for loyalty could be start of a migration path to more high stakes identity

[purchase experience slide]

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to understand Joerg's proposed scope

jeff: I'd like to understand what the scope is for W3C

jheuer: I will address in my last slide

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to remark on the scope

dezell: if you look at the many places that a browser exists today (not just phone and desktop) those are all payment initiation points

jheuer: our plans is to not focus on the logic behind coupon and loyalty systems but rather look for standards around user interaction patterns
... vcf may need to broaded scope to cover all reqs here
... if we have a standard for verifiable claims we need them to be secured in many ways (hardware, software etc)
... need to standardise the framework for exchange of these things

padler: I think what jeurg and linda have called out is that we constantly change context from being "on" the Web to other contexts and so we need to standardize the hand-overs between these
... we need an endpoint agnostic approach

Faouzi: This seems to be an extension to payment request API and add coupons and loyalty and vouchers
... this is where the W3C work could be focused

jheuer: I hope we replace procedural things with data driven things
... because we don't always have a browser but we can still use the Web tech to provide interop

manu: great example of what I am terrified will happen
... the group is adding features and there no clarity on where it

the payment api is becoming a monolithic API that is used for gathering user data, coupons etc

scribe: there is an architectural decision being made to put this in the browser API

padler: we should have an architecture that can be reimplemented in browser and also other places
... I think IG can help here

dezell: is there any objection to reformulating this TF?
... and hopefully feeding this into the WG

linda: process question - is the next step to create a CG

dezell: no, we'd start capturing use cases

chrisallen: not opposed, but
... two major players with offerings
... not hearing use cases that are user focus
... we need a balance so that user issues are also included

eric: we should define what we want done before we go ahead

chrisallen: I think we should limit to use cases until we are happy that the use cases cover

<wseltzer> AdrianHB: rewinds brain

<manu> AdrianHB: With respect to a monolithic browser payments API... this may come up during process discussion.

<manu> AdrianHB: The Web Payments IG created a charter, the WG then went off and started doing its work. The WG is working off of a blank canvas. The expectation was that people would take IG work and develop from there. We have a conflict of approaches for the design. We have WG members trying to solve specific stuff, other people are saying we want a bigger picture vision/architecture. That's the design conflict we have in the Working Group.

<manu> AdrianHB: If we had a big picture vision that includes coupons, loyalty, and other features - the way to get them into a WG, not proposing a solution, but our current approach is not working.

<manu> AdrianHB: There was an expectation that we had an architecture and big picture vision and the output of the WG would follow that...

<manu> AdrianHB: Sometimes the specific problems that WG is so narrow, that it compromises the bigger picture. I agree with Chris and Erik, we should find what the task force is aiming to do

<manu> scribenick: manu

jeff: There are many things that W3C should not do because it's too broad or it's being done elsewhere. Then there is a bunch of stuff that should be done - what are the topics that W3C should work on.
... If we don't pre-sort work we want to do, we will end up doing a lot of work at W3C that will be thrown out,

ChristopherA: Are you saying we have to do something before use cases?

jeff: Yes, if you end up doing a bunch of use cases without knowing what is being done in other groups, let's figure out a more limited scope first.

Joerg: There are certain things that give the parties involved the freedom to do business logic - there is a lot of business logic - no chance to create protocol that conveys all of that. We standardize the usage pattern, transaction session that starts / stops - leave the details (business rules) to the industry.
... We need to allow for a large number of vertical solutions before we have a chance of reaching the market.

jeff: So limit the scope to the transaction model, then that's good.
... It's not clear to me that we have written down the bounds of the scope to inform what we're doing.

padler: Basic use cases, scope - draw people that are passionate about that stuff here - we've defined the problem space, from a core web platform to unify - browser devices, IoT, if we can define the space we want to work on, what we need to do - becomes easier to draw people to work we want to do. If we don't have those use cases defined, if this is something we'd like to do - it's less directed wrt. perspectives we bring to the group.
... We need to be able to pull more people in.

Erik: To go back in history, the only reason coupons is here - when we brought up coupons, loyalty, people use loyalty to pay for transactions.
... We never defined if that was a merchant process or payment process - that was the scope - payments, loyalty, coupons...
... Are there things that are more merchant based

ChristopherA: I do recognize that you can get into ratholes when you don't have enough design thoughts when you get into use cases... That's already happened. For example, I can now use American Express membership points to pay for stuff on Amazon - I'm sure there are other people that want to compete with Amazon. if we don't do something in this area, people either own't use our payment protocols, or they'll break privacy because they're not focused on it like we

are.

ChristopherA: There is a little bit of design already, it's time for use cases, let's cover the other side.

ltoth: In all cases that I outlined, there is a place for W3C to standardize that. It's hard to identify what's in or out of scope without looking at use cases. I don't think you can do one w/o the other.

Ken: What other impacts are there... Rewards, from our perspective, repesent an artificial currency - that can be used anywhere, it can go through conversion and it changes value. Does it fall under jurisdiction - accounting obligation that goes with that.
... Points have to be registered, when you think about things in terms of a Web browser at a global level - when you take your phone and you go from one location to another.
... There are applications around the globe where rewrite capabilities are being impmementated - those are all elements that could be contemplated - circling back, do you start by creating a filter up front, or do you start with use cases deciding what's in or out as you go forward.

jeff: it's a bit iterative, you can't do one without the other - might be useful in that context - it might be worthwhile to launch an initial task force to do initial scoping, if we get agreement on that, then take it to the next level.

dezell: Moving onto next topic - Linda is going to Champion this one.
... We heard loud and clear that we have to get scoping right, please communicate with Linda. Two topics left for today.
... We have ILP

Interledger protocol update

AdrianHB: I want to focus on what other topics of interest we can focus on.

<AdrianHB> ILP slides at: https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-ILP-Update-2016-07-01.pdf

<AdrianHB> Sorry they aren't on the wiki

<wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer

AdrianHB: I have many slides, so I'm going to go quickly
... Interledger is a CG at W3C
... Ripple introduced idea at 1st IG F2F
... as web settlement
... now we talk about it as connecting ledgers

[AHB reviews slides]

AdrianHB: ledger tracks accounts and balances
... different use cases for different types of payment networks
... learning from history, the Internet is a network of networks
... likewise, network of payment networks
... each has an address and an amount

[slide 20]

AdrianHB: Connector between two different networks; how do we ensure that it performs reliably
... 2-phase commit: hold (escrow, reserve)
... capability on the ledger to put funds on-hold
... address, amount, condition

[slide 31 shows fulfilment of condition]

AdrianHB: the Interledger is a graph connected by market makers around the world

jeff: any academic studies?

AdrianHB: there's a whitepaper with a proof; it's been out for a year and we haven't heard any criticism of its correctness

mountie: question about the ownership of money on hold

AdrianHB: preapproval with a condition for release
... discovery, query, quote, setup
... Simple Payment Setup Protocol
... Web APIs for getting receiver info, getting condition from the receiver
... this is the simple protocol. We assume there will be better ones.
... a bunch of working implementations
... workshop next week Wed in London

<scribe> ... ongoing discussions with DEX/Crypto-conditions/smart-signatures

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: collab plans with Lightning on payment channels

ChristopherA: cryptographic hold rather than hold by entity possible

AdrianHB: you can trust a ledger because you know who's behind it, or because you've set up a trusted payment channel
... What's next for W3C? Implementations will drive standards
... BigchainDB. tracking assets on a blockchain
... SkuChain
... Crypto-ledger plugins

jeff: what's the timeframe you see work maturing toward standardization?

AdrianHB: it depends
... Ripple is implementing
... Simple Payments Setup Protocol will evolve rapidly, since we'll have people moving real money, they'll want to mature it.
... by end-of-year, I expect we'll have something ready to standardize as v1
... 5 or 6 people implementing; let's document as v1
... we can't change once it's used that way
... our recommendation would be to do at W3C

mountie: compliance?

AdrianHB: most of the compliance dealt with in setup

mountie: any disucssion with regulators?

AdrianHB: as Ripple, we have a compliance team working with regulators

dezell: As a success criterion, I wanted to have champions on several upcoming topics
... we didnt' get there
... Is anyone uncomfortable sharing their questionnaire answers?
... if not, I'll let you know who the interested parties are, so you can self-organize

Tooling

Erik2: I asked Serge Meytin to look at our process
... reviewing https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Agile

<mountie> link of Erik?

-> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Agile Erik's Agile presentation

Erik2: demonstrating wrike
... intake form
... process management tool
... enables you to break items down with dependencies
... tool helps us to track deliverables
... intake process, items sit there until they have champions

AdrianHB: do you propose that we use Wrike? or a tool with similar features?

Erik2: propose we use Wrike

AdrianHB: is it free?

Erik2: it's cheap. It allows you to track cross-group dependencies

AdrianHB: non-starter for me if it's not free
... I agree with the problem statement, but I think we need to do more work to find the right tool

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask if the proposal is to use wrike?

AdrianHB: Propose, fi the IG agrees on the problem statment, we work to find a tool

ChristopherA: I use Pivotal
... they have a self-hosted version, for a one-time fee (or they might donate)
... also concern about having local copy of data

AdrianHB: look at Zenhub
... I agree with the problem statement, not sure we'll get consensus on the tool

ChristopherA: propose investigation
... I'll look at waffle
... happy to work with others to find tool to try

Erik2: We need to track issues

dezell: I suggest we form a TF

AdrianHB: Interledger is an open source project, so we have similar constraints, don't want to use any tools that are restricted
... start by understanding the constraints

mountie: W3C already has some tools, we need new ones

AdrianHB: group needs to figure out if they're able to use tool within their orgs

wseltzer: also consider the learning curve, overhead of interacting with the tools

Erik2: I provided lots of links to tutorial info

dezell: chairs have leeway to form TF within this group
... TF: Erik, ChristopherA, AdrianHB, dezell, Kiara
... thanks our hosts at W3C
... thanks Ian!
... thanks Susan and Amy for coffee!

[adjourned]