<scribe> scribe: manu

dezell: Any changes to the Agenda?

June Face to Face

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_June2015

dezell: We've talked about this topic quite a bit, need to see if anyone has updates - spend a little time on it. Payment Architecture team has been looking at Capabilities / Vision, etc.
... Whittle it down to the point that we have some materials that the IG can have an opinion about. We have the Capabilities document and also some draft charters. The best starting point according to Ian is the Roadmap.
... Is there anything anyone wants to say about the Agenda - let's talk about that in a bit.

padler: We had a good meeting last week - lot of work last week on capabilities document.

Pat: here's the document - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FbHscEFUA1P6Frm9h-98bgBF8oCNNu3_0BZh8l7Aa0c/edit?pli=1

padler: We have a set of capabilities for now - and a set of capabilities that come next.
... We would be doing releases/features incrementally over the course of the WGs and IGs. The structure is setup such that work can be easily chunked and handed off to other WGs w/o them being heavily dependent on each other for timing. We may have one IG or WG on a different timeframe than the others. We'll split by groupings to help make that happen.

dezell: We have roles first - those are coming from some place else?

padler: The roles were necessary to describe different actors doing in different features.

dezell: Was that from the glossary?

padler: Yes, terms that were useful - shorthand - as we started going through use cases, looked at capabilities - who has to provide what to whom, it became important to specify roles - directionality is important.
... Use cases may say something like 'merchant' - we use payee so it's not overly specific to a use case.

dezell: The foundational capabilities start on page 4

padler: Yes, foundational plus second section allows us to make progress - next set of features for subsequent work w/o gumming up the works. Allows work to happen iteratively, consistent structure for the information. What's been handed out - what's on the radar for those groups.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that Roadmap may be setup like this too.

manu: We may use the same format for the Roadmap - 'what are we doing now?"

Ian: Leandro works for a banking association in Brazil.

<dezell> Steve Stevens X9:

<dezell> X9 has a technical report that covers digital signatures

<dezell> called TR-4. It was developed by a group called SPeRS

<dezell> (also the name of the document).

dezell: On digital signatures - there is a sizeable X9 TR on digital signatures.
... This is an aside - something that we should think about as we're thinking about these particular issues.

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to mention X9 digital signatures

padler: The focus of the work this week is on the capabilities document - focus on the "now" - what's the work that's right in front of us?
... So, what do we need to do for charters?
... What are the first set that we want to capture. Then go through use cases to make sure we've got a good handle on capabilities reflected. I would encourage people to go through there. Something missing?
... The only other thing that we're trying to navigate through - latest document, description of payment agent isn't present - that's because these capabilities are sets of services that may or may not be included into a payment agent.
... So, we have to figure out how to bring payment agent back into document if we need to.

dezell: someone needs to take a look between now and the F2F.

Ian: These documents are still very drafty - we're working hard to have something before the F2F. The concept of Payment Agent should appear in capabilities document. It's in our charter, people are looking for that information.
... Should be an explanation of why we don't provide it as prominently as we do.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to suggest we do need payment agent in there

dezell: Any comments on the document?
... Payment Agent Task Force is doing good work - appreciate the work.

<padler> +1 to needing to somehow incorporate Payment Agent back in... but will need help from everyone to make sure that the framing makes sense..

dezell: Should we look at the roadmap?

Ian: It's not necessary - we're going to use the capabilities to use as the basis for charters.
... That's why we're focused on the capabilities. The roadmap will pull capabilities together into groups and milestones - resource allocation view of the world. What's most important - coming up with the charters.
... Essentially, the things that are most important to be familiar with - use cases and capabilities and draft charters.
... Draft charters should be available at end of week.

dezell: The capabilities and charters are linked logically - we're making it a point to have the reality grounding being the capabilities we're looking for - derived from use cases document and payment architecture work. We do have a good provenance for these charters - they should feel pretty logical to folks.
... The agenda has been changed - goal is to get to charter approval - indicating work for W3C going forward. This was our goal all along, but you will see that content of agenda has been sharpened in that direction.

<Erik> Please provide the link to the agenda

dezell: We may need a bit more face to face work on the glossary - other people may have ideas for the F2F

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention potential issue wrt. Credentials work.

<Ian> Manu: One risk is a credentials that is "exclusive" and focused on payments to the exclusion of other industries

<Ian> ...Ian and I are looking into ways to craft a charter that appeals to everyone.

<Ian> ...but one thing this group cannot do is say that the new WG will focus on payments primarily.

<Ian> ...that will surprise a number of organizations.

<Magda> ?

<Magda> +?

<Ian> Manu: My concern is a document that is focused on payments, and not reviewed by the credentials CG. That might not work for other groups that want to see credentials happen at W3C

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to echo IFSF/Conexxus view of X9.119pt2

<Ian> ...I would be wary of going into this meeting claiming that the draft charter has been reviewed by all the stakeholders

<padler> +1 to ensuring that credentials charter also supports non-payment use cases...

dezell: What Manu is saying is in line w/ other industry groups - Conexxus and International Forecourt Forum - care about tokenization for stuff that are more than payments.
... In my mind, tokenization is a way to encode a credential that protects its content from various kinds of misuse - a token is not a credential, it's a credential bus.
... I think that what Manu is saying is right, but ultimately, it will flourish in Web Payments Activity - but that makes it incumbent upon us that it's a broad thing. While it's taking its energy from Web Payments, another domain in W3C - it may languish there where that won't be allowed in Web Payments Activity.

Erik: I will not vote in support of a Credentials group w/o the financial services use cases in there.

Manu: Yes, we're having a meeting about that tomorrow - will put them back in.

Magda: Different non-payments groups - but you answered my question.

Ian: I am working on some charter language taking Manu's input into account. We'll be at the relative beginning of the conversation wrt. this IG. The Credentials CG has been operating for some time, we don't want to prevent them from advancing their own agenda, but we will be using face to face time to expose in detail what credentials we need for payments.
... We may not end the meeting w/ consensus on a charter because it's fresh within this IG.
... Secondly, we should not claim that any draft charter has been reviewed/endorsed by any other stakeholders because we won't be able to do that before the face-to-face meeting.
... I'd like our group to go as far as possible in this group, then have input from other groups - then produce something that has broader acceptance.
... Participation will go up, group will have more chances to succeed. The risk is that if they do something not focused on any one particular industry - terminology, make sure to surface payments use cases for our purposes.

Erik: X9 119pt2 - any traction wrt. getting this group access to that?

dezell: I've talked w/ Steve Stevens - told him that it's in their best interest to be as open as possible.
... he wants to do the right thing, it's just not the usual way of working for them.

Ian: Getting reviews of X9 work?

Erik: Five different standards that this group needs to look at.

dezell: We'll take that up in external reviews topic.
... Any other input on charters / capabilities / face to face agenda?
... I don't know when registration closes... if you haven't yet registered - please register.

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/73816/ftf201506/

Ian: We have 26 people attending - total of 45/46 for the roundtable.
... Our goal was 50 for roundtable, w/ buffer for 60.

<Erik> I recommend this group review: ISO 12812, X9.69, X9.73, X9.119 part 2, X9.122

Ian lists off amazing set of roundtable participants.

dezell: Outstanding list of participants. :)
... Anything else before moving on?

External Reviews Task Force

dezell: There is a lot of prior work in this area, don't want to ignore that - must re-use... revitalize external reviews task force to get traction w/ these external groups.
... This is really how I look at it - We have ISO Class D Liason for ISO specs - currently working on X9 access.
... Put down single main target - for example digital signatures - glossary - lots of sources for terminology - pay attention to how we apply that terminology.
... Also, we're thinking of glossary alignment.

Erik: Due to Bloomberg being a chair - we can assign X9 invited experts - going to just approve that instead of waiting to hear back.

Claudia: I'm familiar with the process - Invited Experts named in MOU - part of the challenge here is both 12812 and 119pt2 tokenization are drafts, that's why it's more challenging.
... You're correct, that process has been used before.

Erik: These IEs can't vote, right?

Claudia: yes.

Erik: Yes, this sounds like a good way to get folks quick access.

dezell: We probably have enough votes on X9 to get their attention.

Claudia: quite a number of overlapping members. You'll want to make sure that your member is well aware of your interest - one thing I'd propose is that when comments/observations are rendered - Dave Farro - Alan Thiemann - membership is aware of the comments.

dezell: I should assemble a list of comments.
... Ok, do you want to give your point of view on External Reviews Task Force?

Claudia: Questions are being raised on whether we should follow a particular methodology, Oasis does X or Y - great comments. Before we address those specific standards bodies, I wanted to hear from the IG - what your expectation is for the external task force.
... Are there other targeted standards that we should go out and look at? X9 token is not a payment token, it's a security token. PCI and EMVCo have work related to payment token.
... In some cases, that information is readily available.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that we want comments on how we align and things that are pertinent to go into W3C work.

<Ian> Manu: I think the thing that will be most helpful for the people writing the specs is understanding how we can reference (or "include") the work of others

<Ian> Manu: So a picture of specs and which ones that we might be using would help

<Ian> Here were Ian's previous notes on the task force:

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/External_Reviews_Task_Force

<Ian> ...which included coordination of reviews, listing specs we should know about,

<Ian> Manu: Would be good to have the external review group at a high level understand where to start

<Ian> ...editors need help from external reviews TF on what to use/include

<Ian> ...tell us how to reuse work?

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to say that #1 is clear and consistent "normative" references to terminology in our Web Activity Work, #2 reuse of external ideas

dezell: Glossary - terminology stuff - is an edge case - it's all intertwined - much more important to have clear an concise definitions internally than it would be to have a mushy relationship w/ external entities. If we have clear internal terminology, then map to external.
... I think we should look at UBL, but it would be counter-productive to adopt it as a whole. This is all for external reviews group.
... To your point, Manu, I have an idea of the list of things that are most important reviews that we should do right off of the bat - we haven't unearthed it yet.
... ISO20022 data dictionary elements that are relevant to our space - once we know that, that tells us what the encoding language is - gives us an understanding of terminological needs. That's the biggest one.

<Erik> ISO 12812, X9.69, X9.73, X9.119 part 2, X9.122

Erik: ISO20022 data dictionary - they haven't completed it - Claudia can vouch for that as well. These documents should review these documents: ISO 12812, X9.69, X9.73, X9.119 part 2, X9.122

dezell: Groups approved by RNG - they have payments stuff approved - we just need to know data dictionary... we'll hear about 12812 in pretty good detail. Not worried about that moving forward right now - should mention that doodle poll is 10am tomorrow morning - Tuesday.
... We have a planning meeting for 30 minutes at 9:30am
... just a heads-up - people in IG are invited to come to that meeting.
... Anything else about external.

Claudia: When we have our meeting tomorrow, we'll report back to the group on what we heard about today.

Erik: There are 50+ standards out there, only a few of them are relevant.

Claudia: That's fair - need to follow up w/ Steve as well - asked him to review our draft documents. That way X9 experts can say what standards are most relevant to this group.
... If W3C work to move forward requires other X9 standards to be created - we may want to let them know.
... We've had corporations come to X9 subgroups, asking for standards to be created - like tokenization - within broader context. If we have a standard we can't write, we can ask X9 or other standards group to create a standard for us.

Erik: Would everyone have to be X9 members to participate in that?

Claudia: We can convene 20+ experts to develop content and then run it through X9 process to get it published. Not suggesting that right now, just another option.
... We have a lot for our call tomorrow.

dezell: Just got feedback on group review of use cases - we'll consider these on our call tomorrow. For people that are curious - every single commented said "that's an awfully big thing they're trying to do".
... We already knew that, but it proves they're paying attention. We'll talk about these - happy that we got X9 feedback. This group is going to become more and more the ambassador group to the outside world while WGs do technical work.
... Very happy that X9 folks gave us substantive feedback.
... Any other business?

None

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/TR/X9 TR/
Succeeded: s/Zakim is dead right?//
Found Scribe: manu
Inferring ScribeNick: manu
Default Present: +1.816.881.aaaa, +1.612.655.aabb, Erik, manu, Dsr, Ian, dezell, Claudia, Taylor, Magda, +49.303.3.aacc, +1.312.322.aadd, padler, Joerg, David, +55114502aaee, Leandro
Present: Ian Magda Claudia Taylor DavidE Erik Manu DavidJ Pat DaveRaggett Leandro Joerg
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015May/0242.html
Got date from IRC log name: 01 Jun 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/06/01-wpay-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.