Web Payments Interest Group Teleconference
20 Apr 2015


See also: IRC log


Erik, Istvan, Adrian, Pat, Ian
Manu, DavidE, Claudia, Dave


FTF meeting


<scribe> scribe: Ian

ian: Special room rate thanks Erik

Ian notes on agenda:

* For productive discussion, we will need materials in advance.

* The materials I have in mind specifically are:

- Draft architecture documents

- Draft charters for future standards work (I have an action on that)

* Are we planning any joint sessions with people from ISO or X9? If so, will the liaisons

task force be working with those guests on what we will discuss? One idea is that

we ask specific individuals in those subcommittees to review the upcoming architecture

document and send comments back to the IG in advance of the meeting. Then we can discuss

face-to-face any challenging issues that emerge from that review.

* Should we have a “joint meeting” (during the FTF) on security, so that we can work through

any obstacles on topics like security models.

* Lastly, I think each task force lead should let us know this week whether they will want to reserve

time for discussion at the FTF meeting and, if so, on what topics.

Erik: I chatted with UbiKey last week...they are interested in the FTF
... good time for a presentation
... also techsec
... I think those would fit well with architecture discussion

IJ: I think a general presentation would be fine, but if we get them to review our work and guide us, that's even better

Erik: +1

padler: We need to have requirements and vision statement outlined....
... got some good questions last week .... distinction between pushing value v. pushing promises of value
... we need to have these statements / vision up front
... those principles/vision will be important cornerstones of conversations with other orgs

<AdrianHB> +1 to being clear on our vision/goals before asking anyone for their opinion on the architecture

padler: also, we will want to identify gaps in existing landscape
... e.g., there are x9 standards for parts of a process, but there are not yet international standards for some of those areas
... e.g, if we need ISO people to handle encryption
... so the next 2 weeks of arch work will be on vision
... out of that I think we will have an easier time describing what we want to accomplish

Ian: we need more from the external liaisons task force to enable us to do that gap analysis (e.g,. reporting on relevant specs so we all know what applies to our work, active pushing of our FPWD to those groups, etc.)

padler: We want to be sure to articulate functional requirements, and then different possible ways that the work might be accomplished
... e.g., we need crypto, here are some groups that exist that are working on this (or "we need a new group here")

Erik: +1 to articulating (functional) requirements

IJ: My succinct statement aligns with Erik - use cases => requirements => roadmap
... Some requirements will be general (e.g,. accessibility) others driven specifically by use cases (e.g., "we need crypto here in this exchange")
... and others will be more "optional" for the group to discuss like "Do we need a standard vocabulary for receipts?"

padler: goal for the next couple of weeks is to collect requirement in a sane/systematic fashion.
... so that as approaches are presented, we have a way of determining whether approaches satisfy requirements, whether they do it well, etc.
... I think that requirements come from other places besides use cases, including charter, and other industry context
... without this analysis, we will not have a way to ground a decision in comparing two approaches A/B

IJ: +1 to looking at what is implementable ... but need to consider both the financial site and the browser side

Erik: Content security is important topic; that's an example of a requirement we might see moving forward

padler: We were looking at something like X9, or tecsec and determining (by taking a step back) that the real need is securing content
... we might end up with a requirement like "payer details must be secure when at rest"
... that might lead to a requirement on content encryption.
... that's a practical example where the requirement would drive work

Erik: Right, in the junction between browsers and finance

AdrianHB: One comment on goals and vision of architecture document
... what's our deadline on that?

<padler> +1 to deadline on vision statement! :)

AdrianHB: I feel like that if we do analysis without goals might be meaningless.

Goals: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/ExecSummary

IJ: I think there is give and take. E.g., the analysis of the use cases may suggest questions that we should answer in light of goals

AdrianHB: I mean more specifically goals of architecture vs. goals of group

Padler: What the architecture seeks to achieve is driven by the group's goals, but I also agree we need to say up front what we are trying to tackle
... e.g,. if we expect to support both existing and new payment systems and exchange data between them
... so if you are a consumer, you might want a payment agent that interoperates among diverse systems
... so if that's a goal it suggests requirements such as a standard API for exchanging information independent of underlying system

[IJ thinks/hopes that use cases will drive in most cases those requirements]

<padler> AdrianHB:

IJ: We have a spectrum from use cases through high-level goals through specific functional requirements. We'll be itererating over all of those and it will become clearer through the analysis

AdrianHB: When we are sitting at the FTF meeting or in 6 months time looking at work done so far, we should be able to say whether we have drifted away from vision
... so I think high-level requirements are important for keeping us on track

[Pat on catalog in front of document to help identify and organize requirements]

padler: I want people to be able to express their requirements easily and then we will distill and identify the core requirements


padler: the category is an a priori way to help our analysis.
... +1 to a deadline for goals

(within 2 docs)

Erik: +1

<scribe> ACTION: padler to write up a plan (with description, timeline, and identifying clearly who is expected to do stuff) for getting to a proposal for architecture goals by 4 May [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/20-wpay-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Write up a plan (with description, timeline, and identifying clearly who is expected to do stuff) for getting to a proposal for architecture goals by 4 may [on Patrick Adler - due 2015-04-27].

External Reviews

Erik: AOB?


next meeting

27 April

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: padler to write up a plan (with description, timeline, and identifying clearly who is expected to do stuff) for getting to a proposal for architecture goals by 4 May [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/20-wpay-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/04/20 14:52:03 $