Web Payments Interest Group Telecon -- 08 Jun 2015

<github-bot> [13webpayments-ig] 15dprophet pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/f37f5754a807eb9e52e13daeb751e305ab1c2a2c

<github-bot> 13webpayments-ig/06master 14f37f575 15Erik Anderson: Adding notes from the Federal Reserve Secure Payments taskforce call

<github-bot> [13webpayments-ig] 15dprophet pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/34298c108ea2544a65a672e6188cb2f27bcb6e65

<github-bot> 13webpayments-ig/06master 1434298c1 15Erik Anderson: Update requirements_draft.txt

<AdrianHB> Zakim today? It looks like it

<Ian> rrasgent, pointer

<manu> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Jun/0030.html

<Ian> FTF agenda -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Jun/0030.html

<Ian> Next meeting: FTF 16-18 June

<Ian> (No meeting on 15 June

<Ian> scribe: Ian

<inserted> scribe: manu

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

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

Ian: we'd like to have some charters w/ consensus at end of the face-to-face meeting.
... We will have a strong charter around capabilities document.
... That's the Payment Architecture WG Charter

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

Ian: The actual charter that captures this, has languished a bit.
... The scope will be capabilities drafted for version 1

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk about dependencies for Payments Charter.

<Ian> Manu: I've been working on a list of capabilities with dependences...this could be useful for fleshing out the dependencies

Ian: That should be available on the 10th, about a week before the meeting.

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

Ian: Second big topic is on credentials - my current expectation is that we use the face-to-face to flesh out use cases from the payments industry around identity and that credentials would be helpful for.
... We've moved a bit away from a draft charter for discussion - the initial one proposed by Manu was drawing on the community group - important to make it a part of the dicussion, but focusing the face-to-face discussion on payments-related identity/credentials.
... make KYC easier, make it easier for merchants to collect information like shipping address, proof of age, etc.
... Having a stronger discussion around payments and identity needs would be good.
... A broader coalition would be helpful

<Ian> Manu: Yes, the Ian summary is accurate.

<Ian> ..+1 to the FTF meeting to gather payments use cases around credentials

<Ian> ...but I have concerns about the broader coalition part..if we just focus on payments we may miss opportunities.

<Ian> ...so I look forward to that broader discussion for after the FTF meeting.

<Ian> ...and whether we should have a generalized solution or multiple efforts

dezell: Just wanted to make sure that people know that I totally endorse what we're trying to do here - come up with payment-centric credentialling system that solves the payment problem.

<Ian> dezell: +1 to getting payments use cases on the table...but think wider collaboration useful

dezell: I'm also sympathetic to needs of broader community - like tokenization technologies should be inclusive of other market verticals. I think have to make this work for payments.

<Zakim> evert, you wanted to mention interaction with identity

<Ian> evert: I was working last week on a 2-pager on a customer story

<Ian> ..where I found out that you cannot write a storyline on "just credentials"....you immediately run into identification of customers...

<Ian> ...I will rewrite this (in English) and see if it can be useful to the group

+1 to having another story about the broader credentials needs.

Ian: Good to know if increased interoperability around identity is important while taking usual web privacy and security concerns are taken into account. Please add pertinent questions to the wiki.
... Summary is - look for maturing capabilities document this week and updated payment charter as a result.
... Credentials discussion as a part of that wiki.
... Any other questions about logistics/agenda
... We will have one charter around payments.
... Do not expect a draft charter on credentials at face-to-face meeting.
... I do not expect a draft charter around value web.
... There is a fourth area around strong authentication / security - being driven elsewhere at W3C.
... I have asked if we can have draft charters from those groups at the meeting. That's not work that we're going to be driving
... I expect two new authentication WGs - one FIDO-like, the other hardware-based authentication.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about agenda - lots of time in afternoon on Tuesday. and to mention that use cases might need to be deprioritized. and to ask about 'digital signatures'

<Ian> Manu: Ian, I am noticing a big chunk of time Tuesday to talk about things we haven't resolved.

<Ian> ....do we have a better idea of topics or will be driven by discussion on day 1 and part of day 2

<Ian> Manu: Also, it's becoming clearer to me that use cases are going to be deprioritized....we have enough to drive version 1.0

<Ian> ...and so giving them less time at the FTF may give more time for discussion of credentials, etc.

<Ian> Manu: The one hole in the new auth groups is that there's no discussion around signatures or extensible data models (e.g., Linked Data)

<Ian> ..it is important to bring that out

<Ian> ...there are no planned charters that I know of around that.

<Ian> ...I think that's a blind spot for the group/agenda

<Ian> dezell: On digital signatures....I didn't hear from Erik yet on X9 and digital signatures

<Erik> Digital signatures are not legal binding in Financial Services. I dont recommend talking about something for payments that utilize digital signatures yet digital signatures arent legally binding.

<Ian> Manu: Cryptographic signatures really matter to this group

<Zakim> nicktr, you wanted to talk about use cases being really important in keeping us focussed

<Ian> nicktr: I absolutely get that we need to be careful with the agenda...given feedback from X9 group (which aligns with feedback I've been receiving)

<Ian> ...the feedback is that we are going very broad...

<Ian> ..and how do we narrow the scope

<Ian> (IJ agrees that we should do some narrowing on the _use case_ level not just capability)

Ian: Manu, you asked a few questions on agenda - time required to bring everyone up to speed - need lots of time to do that - we're chartered to propose new work. If we have extra time, we may want folks to drive agenda at face-to-face. unconference style would be one way to manage extra time.
... The second - narrowing our scope in terms of use cases is useful to do - we may want to flip it w/ capabilities - gives us a vocabulary for talking about things - use cases are intended to describe a broad scope of narrative - we should spend some time focusing in those terms rather than just capabilities level.
... We might also list feedback - could take some time to see if people agree.
... Signatures - really interesting question - I'll take back a question to Wendy to find out about status of work there.
... Web Crypto space - webcrypto is deployed, but doesn't do signatures or key management - don't know where discussion is internally wrt. that.
... Will make a call to find out about digital signature work.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to mention that we will cover signtaures/identifiers as part of capabilities discussion..

Pat: Where time has been spent on capabilities is to chunk up the work - orthogonal w/ capabilities - don't need to boil the ocean, we can focus on partitioning/prioritizing work - feedback from X9 - if you're looking at capabilities document. How are the capabilities broken down into groupings - chunks of capabilities - what are core capabilities?
... What are trust/identifiers needed across the whole stack. Newest bits added around payment interactions - trying to figure out series of use cases in a very small, two-party interaction - what is needed to move the data?
... We're still working on filling that section in - we can focus conversation at face-to-face around that.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to nick on use cases vs. roadmap

<Ian> Manu: Roadmap is for prioritization

Roadmap document: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Roadmap#Capabilities.2C_Relation_to_Flow.2C_Responsible_Groups

<Ian> (THAT IS A DRAFT :)

<Ian> Manu: Seeks to prioritize work

<Ian> ...experimentation to group capabilities that help the use cases materialize

<Ian> ...and assign them to groups that would be responsible for them

<Ian> ...I think we are doing what both Nick and Natasha want in the roadmap doc

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to comment on narrowing the scope of use cases

<Ryladog> +1 to Manu, this is a good table to help focus who may work on what

<Ian> dezell: We need to work on how we communicate with people about what we are doing since we are getting feedback on boiling the ocean

X9 feedback

<inserted> scribe: Ian

dezell: Patrick created a response

<dezell> X9 response: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Jun/0029.html

<Ryladog> +1 to approve and send email. I have read it and it is good

[Pat summarizes the respnose]

Pat: Three parts to the response:

1) We are talking about Web Commerce (including payments)

2) Flows

3) Prioritization

Pat: We want to allow work to co-evolve, so are working on modularization of capabilities

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about X9 equivalent in EU, and then again in Asia-Pacific?

Manu: +1 to Pat's response
... I am concerned that the messaging seems to be a bit off now
... if people think that we are trying to take on everything in the use cases....so that needs fixing

<dezell> +1 to fixing that part of the messaging.

<dezell> 1+

Manu: great that we have X9 feedback...are there EU and Asia/Pacific bodies where we should similarly be seeking feedback?
... SWIFT?

Manu...EU?

Manu: Perhaps Yandex can help us reach the Russia/China payment network partnership

Claudia: Since we do have a liaison with TC 68 that covers all those markets

Manu: Yes, but we'd get more regional flavor by reaching out to those markets "more directly"

Claudia: ECB is a liaison member to TC 68
... so do TC 68 and then ask them for help reaching regional bodies
... TC 68 can help speed this up

<scribe> ACTION: dezell to reach out to ISO TC 68 partners to find good channel for getting feedback on use cases and other documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/06/08-wpay-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Reach out to iso tc 68 partners to find good channel for getting feedback on use cases and other documents [on David Ezell - due 2015-06-15].

<Ryladog> What do we think about this? "focusing on a state machine view where certain classes of information are needed to enable certain mechanics within the envisioned processes that result in the ultimate exchange of value." Is this what we want or - is it out of scope?

Ryladog: TPAC 2015 will be in Sapporo, let's leverage that for relations

Ian: +1 to strengthening connections at TPAC 2015

Ryladog: Regarding x9 feedback....is the phrase that I pasted going too far?
... not sure that we need to change our name as an IG
... we can include mention of this scope in text, but I think the focus on web payments matters

padler: I think what's interesting about the state machine comment is that a lot of the interactions we are talking about (e.g., payer to payee)...flow in different ways
... the more we reflect those elements in the document, the easier it is to describe them

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to respond to state machine

Any other FTF items people want to discuss

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

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to ask people to look at interaction diagram and capability groupings.. for feedback on capabilities discussion..

padler: Please do look at the capabilities doc before the FTF meeting....especially the capability groupings and the recently added diagrams

(Input on the agenda, materials absolutely welcome before the meeting....big questions to be discussed at the meeting)

Ryladog: +1 to the wheel in the capabilities doc

<dezell> Katie: role of Regulator is well articulator.

Ryladog: +1 to making regulator role more visible

NEXT MEETING

16-18 June FTF

- DRAFT -

Web Payments Interest Group Telecon
08 Jun 2015

Attendees

Contents

X9 feedback

Any other FTF items people want to discuss

NEXT MEETING

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

- DRAFT -

Web Payments Interest Group Telecon 08 Jun 2015

Attendees

Contents

X9 feedback

Any other FTF items people want to discuss

NEXT MEETING

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

Web Payments Interest Group Telecon
08 Jun 2015