See also: IRC log
https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_June2015
<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
q/
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].
Erik: AOB?
[none]
27 April