Web Payments Payment Architecture Task Force (Thursday) -- 04 Jun 2015

<Ian> scribe: manu

<Ian> ah, we can do a webex with my identity

<schuki> Zakim: aacc is schuki

Ian: I would happily give a quick update on what I've been working on - would like to convey my perception of things.

Adrian: Do we want to mention Thursday night drinks on the call?

Ian: I may have missed that.
... Is there a finalized plan?

Adrian: Yes, there is a pending email that I need to send you.

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

Face to Face updates

<AdrianHB> Where: Le Cirque Cafe, One Beacon Court, 151 East 58th Street (in the same building as Bloomberg)

<AdrianHB> When: Thursday, June 18

Ian: The primary goal is that we end up with W3C Charters that we feel that we have a consensus for - W3C standards work for the fall 2015.

<AdrianHB> What: ....

<Ian> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FbHscEFUA1P6Frm9h-98bgBF8oCNNu3_0BZh8l7Aa0c/edit

Ian: We're coming together around Payment Architecture - the thing that's most informing that is capabilities document

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

Ian: There is a draft charter for a Web Payments architecture group - it's sitting there lonely, ultimately it'll say that it'll do capabilities that are version 1 in capabilities document
... What are relevant tendencies for groups, what do deliverables look like - 2nd topic has come to the fore - which is around credentials.
... My personal view is that we have more work to do to reach a shared agreement on the credentials use cases that we believe W3C should pursue. Manu has put into place a draft presentation that is here...

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

Ian: We're going to be working on that to bring the group up to speed.
... We would like to hear from the group on where the most important financial industry use cases are - digital signatures, etc. needs for standardization.
... If we can do that, we won't have a charter at the end of the meeting, but we'll have a better sense of where we think we can make a difference.
... Then we'll have a discussion w/ folks that have been working on credentials on education and healthcare.
... There are other security/authentication things that need to happen elsewhere at W3C.
... Any requirements we can develop over the summer - Adrian will be focused on talking about Value Web - 3rd possible area - greater shared understanding.
... Stuff that needs to happen is development of capabilities and then getting to a better understanding of what we mean by "Credentials" and use cases.

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

Ian: Manu also included a topic on successful deployment.
... How do we get uptake, how do we support pilot projects, what are versioning issues - how do we get it to "work in practice"
... I'm also working on Jeff Jaffe (W3C CEO)'s presentation. We're up to 62 people - we're at standing room only for the roundtable.
... Since we have big names in the group - we have to put on a good presentation. So, that's how I see the world from my point of view.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to discuss the payments vs commerce discussion that has been raised in the mailing lists wrt WGs

Ian: We were hoping to have all these materials ready for people to review before the meeting.
... There is stuff to review.

AdrianHB: I wanted to bring up something we got in review comments from X9 - the comment basically says something to the effect of "you're doing commerce, not just payments"
... Maybe that means we have a Commerce WG - and a Payments WG - specifics of actual payment - assuming all commerce stuff is done, how do we do the payment?

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about presentation on 18th.

<Jackson> +1 to this point

<Ian> Manu:To quickly respond to Adrian, -1 to prematurely splitting

<Ian> ...groups; in time that may happen

<Ian> ...but keep in mind that there are groups working on 10-15 (or more) specs and they have been able to make progress

<Ian> ...I think things will be so tightly coupled in v1, that creating multiple WGs will create unnecessary overhead.

<Ian> manu: Thanks Ian for the summary with where we are re: face-to-face

<Ian> ...can you give update on roundtable and presentations from IG

Ian: We had originally thought for the roundtable - interest group will work for 2.5 days - converge on what it believes needs to be done. First part of roundtable - sharing w/ other 30+ organizations what we think needs to happen. The second part will be to hear from them if they think this is the right direction.
... The way we structured the roundtable - Jeff will do 20 minute talk about W3C, Web, and Payments Activity - and direction for work.
... I'd like to seed discussion with questions from the IG - "we don't know the answer to that, get roundtable to tell us"
... People in audience may have their own questions - Jeff was going to field questions originally. Now it's morphed into a panel.
... I will moderate
... There will be questions from the audience, I'll try to direct them to the panel.
... I've extended 5 invitations, heard back from 3 people - trying to create a bit of diversity - Erik from Bloomberg, Claudia for US Fed, Evert from Rabobank, and two other outstanding invitations.
... We're seeking some diversity. I also plan to call on IG participants who are in the room where I think those people are the right people to call on.
... There are a lot of people in the IG - didn't want to discriminate - but wanted to have people there supporting Jeff. Mostly just introductions, saying a few things from an industry stakeholder perspective.

<Ian> Jackson: One problem I think we can help with...historically we have made a separation between payments and the collection of data that becomes the payment

<Ian> ...we are doing it in this conversation as well

<Ian> ...but the market has moved past that.

+1 to what David Jackson is saying!

<Ian> ...the banks and processors still view the world that way, but are being circumvented by those that do not observe that convention

<Ian> ...e.g., around loyalty schemes

<Ian> ...these things are merging into the process

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to respond to Manu

<Ian> Jackson:...so not as bright a line as we might like it to be

<Ian> AdrianHB: I appreciate the operational challenge of multiple groups, but not sure we want one group to do all the things (other than credentials)

<Ian> ...I think the commerce v. payments is a useful way to distinguish functionality

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say he's hearing David and Adrian saying two different things?

<Ian> Manu: Yes, let's discuss at FTF

<Ian> Jackson: What i'm trying to say is that where we separate commerce/payment...at the 50K view, we need to embrace these topics that we might think of as commerce (loyalty, receipts, etc.).....is one thing

<Ian> ...operationally I don't have a particular view

<Ian> ...I am ok with different approaches operationally

<Ian> ...but we don't want to be so focused on the payments process that the applied standard does not end up doing enough to add value.

<Ian> Manu: +1 to David

<Ian> Manu: So there are a couple of points being made:

<Ian> * How widely should we cast a net? I am hearing we should take a more holistic view

<Ian> * What's the most efficient way to organize the work operationally? (e.g., not taking on too much per group so they can make progress)

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to ask for a little clarification and also to share some thoughts on loose coupling of core concepts..

<Ian> padler: You need at the base identity to allow different processes to work together (e.g., tie together payments and loyalty, ....)

<Ian> ...the feedback we got from X9 about segmentation of the payment process...if you think about it...there are core areas of focus:

<Ian> - identification

<Ian> - composability into different flows and still getting interop

<Ian> ...e.g., developing credentials that are interoperable across industry use cases

<Ian> ...so in work on capabilities I have been thinking about some aspects being more about commerce (e.g., "this is a loyal customer")

<Ian> padler: My question is: as we are talking about commerce and breaking down the work, and whether we are focused on payments or something border, it feels like there are capabilities beyond what we expect in just a payment agent.

<Ian> ...e.g., identity stuff does not belong in "just payment agent"

<Ian> ...so I've been wondering how to depict:

<Ian> * interoperable identifiers

<Ian> * services around providing assertions around identifiers

<Ian> * services around identity and identity metadata

<Ian> * services around payments and contracts and value transfer

<Ian> ...and some of those use cases are mostly about exchange of value and less about identity of person

<Ian> * services more about commerce like loyalty

<Ian> padler: It's important that we tease those out so that different components can be used in or out of a payments context

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to wrap up and move on to next agenda item (Capabilities)

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest that common capabilities is a good reason for payments WG and commerce WG to collaborate but not be the same thing

<Ian> AdrianHB: I want to suggest based on Pat's input that it feels a bit like there are common capabilities between commerce and payments

<Ian> ...that's a good reason for 2 WGs to work on those domains to collaborate

Capabilities Document

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FbHscEFUA1P6Frm9h-98bgBF8oCNNu3_0BZh8l7Aa0c/edit

<AdrianHB> commerce and payments have some common capability requirements (identity as an example) so it makes sense that the two would collaborate in standardisation work but have specific focus

<Ian> padler: I've been working to simplify the document and also tease apart things from use cases ... also take into account X9 feedback

<Ian> see, for example, page 4

<Ian> Core capability includes "key management"

<Ian> ....if we can't do that it will be difficult to do asynchronous things

<Ian> ...then there's a whole section on identification and authorization

<Ian> ...that talks about registration, identification, credentials, binding

<Ian> ...also sections on offers and invoices

<Ian> ...offers may not be specific to payments

<Ian> ...contracts and so forth might appear there

<Ian> ...sections are starting to emerging

<Ian> ...perhaps a good topic for the capabilities session of FTF is how do we tease apart commerce from payments

Ian: For the face-to-face meeting, I'm concerned if we spend a lot of time talking about how to operationally manage the work. Our goal is to come out with charters - my sense given actual resource limitations w/ team contacts / limitations - it will not be practical for us to launch a commerce and payments group.
... it's one thing to understand the topics conceptually, operations is something else.
... We could have discussions - how thinking about things helps us come up with architecture to work with stuff - but I'll offer that we won't have the resources to launch two pretty closely related groups. Launching one that can evolve and fork as needed (if there is a perception that doing so would help work get done faster), then that's good.
... I think there are a number of considerations around resources - see where we are once the group gains momentum.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to think that we could bikeshed for a long time on "teasing things apart"

<Ian> Manu: I was mostly going to say what Ian just said...it's important that we understand how the pieces make sense logically and how they compose, but I think there are resource constraints making 2 groups less likely to succeed. Also coordination overhead is real.

<Ian> ...I think we could spend a lot of time conceptualizing..i think we should instead focus on the 'minimum viable product' since we will get to technical work faster

<AdrianHB> +1 to a single WG (I bow to Manu and Ian's W3C experience) but still think this is a good separation of concerns that we should use

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to say this is more about the orthogonality of standards vs. the structure of the group..

<Ian> padler: Primary conversation for the FTF meeting goal is to understand the organization of capabilities and to understand why things are separated

<AdrianHB> @Ian: I think the stakeholders for each are different so I'd expect it to be useful to them

<AdrianHB> Payments: banks, central banks, third party payment providers

<AdrianHB> Commerce: Retailers, Loyalty Program Providers etc

<Ian> padler: Important for us to recognize that capabilities extend beyond payment agent

<AdrianHB> Identity: EVERYBODY :)

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask why you don't think there is enough of a logical separation in the capabilities document now?

<Ian> AdrianHB: I don't think a lot more to do...I like the current organization

<Ian> ...I think we have 3 categories:

<Ian> IDENTITY

<Ian> PAYMENTS

<Ian> COMMERCE

<Ian> ...and offers, receipts, invoices fit in commerce

<Ian> (and loyalty)

<padler> +1...

<padler> the only thing I would add is key mgmt

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree

Ian: For the purposes of the face-to-face meeting, given initial support - if that's a direction people think would be useful for organizing it, people may find it useful.
... Under each category, there may be subcategories.
... This will also give me a framework for Jeff for his presentation - we can talk about priorities under each one.

<Ian> IJ: What about security as a top-level topic?

<Ian> padler: I like Adrian's 3

<Ian> ..that's how it's starting to flow

<AdrianHB> +1 to security

<Ian> ...but also "key management" is a supporting feature for all three of the top categories

<AdrianHB> (with key management in there)

<Ian> I think we need keys/signatures/encryption/authentication

+1 to key management under security

but we should also mention signatures, encryption, and authentication.

<Ian> maybe we do: Identity, Security and Privacy, Payments, Commerce

<Ian> and they build on each other

<AdrianHB> perhaps security is the wrong title but +1

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask Pat what he thinks needs to be done to Capabilities before face-to-face.

<Ian> (Sounds like good input to Pat for updates)

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to see if the group has any other concerns before the call tomorrow.

<Ian> topic; Summarizing who is doing what for next week

<Ian> - Pat, Manu, Adrian, Ian to work on capabilities

<Ian> - Ian and Manu working on credentials topic preparation

<Ian> - Ian working on Jeff presentation

<Ian> - Ian also working on payment architecture charter...could use help on dependencies, deliverables

<Ian> [Other people are working on other presentations as shown in the FTF meeting agenda]

Ian: Need to focus on items above - expand the number of contributors that doesn't augment the costs that much.
... People may want to volunteer to help - in a section or two.
... People may want to fill in each section given template.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to make small suggestion on charters..

We may want to call it the "Web Payments WG"! :P

<AdrianHB> +1 to pat but can't think of better name than payments :)

- DRAFT -

Web Payments Payment Architecture Task Force (Thursday)

04 Jun 2015

Attendees

Contents

Face to Face updates

Capabilities Document

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output