Web Payments IG Payment Architecture Task Force (Thursday) -- 11 Jun 2015

<manu> scribe: AdrianHB

manu: any additions?

Roadmap Updates

manu: suggest we do roadmap first

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

ian: current sense I have going into f2f is: what we are talking about now goes in 4 new groups
... waiting for settlement presentation to confirm
... in jeff's preso there is also a question about signatures (although more key management)
... roadmap says the Ig will continue to add use cases and reqs and reach out to larger community
... vision lives with the IG
... lots to do there
... Web Payments WG - i have shrunk capabilities doc to use as working doc for f2f
... capabilities is not in there but can be added in respec version
... credentials wg - manu and i have worked on a good presentation for that

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about Signatures WG, six groups, etc. and to say that the "expanded list" is helpful /if people ask for it/

settlement - down to adrian preso

manu: the current roadmap has a blindspot around key man and sigs

<Ian> +1 to adding mention of key management

manu: i don't think there is anther wg at w3c that can pick that up

<Ian> q_

manu: key man and linked data sigs need to be discussed at f2f
... linked data related work can be done in linked data wg

ian: jeff will be raising the question of a standard for dig sigs etc in his preso at round table
... note that in the charter there is a now a concrete req for JSON-LD canonicalisation
... i do want to dig into why we need it lets discuss at f2f

<Ian> s/canonicalization//

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that the "expanded list" is helpful /if people ask for it/

manu: like the focus of the roadmap
... may want to also show the prioritisation wiki

ian: for digestability I suggest a chart or something visual
... if not lets move the bits from the prioritization wiki over to the roadmap

manu: having info is [lost audio]

ian: i like the mapping back to use cases in the priorities
... will try to fold into roadmap

manu: anything further?

Payment Architecture WG Proposal

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

ian: most NB is scope
... started with basic description from discussions around payment agent integration
... wrestled with folding in capabilities
... realised goals are most NB thing to get consensus
... kept it high level enough to not specify actual deliverables
... then added deliverables with help from Wendy Seltzer
... started with a need to capture vocabs then apis then protocols
... then took a stab at milestones
...
... vocabs seems easier to do based on workdone already
... browser related stuff will likely take longer

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk to deliverables - I think we need more and to say that browser integration /should not/ be in the critical path.

manu: i think we need more deliverables
... lot of the tech is already in a first draft from the CG
... browser APIs need to be there but REST apis are new to W3C

this is the client server protocol

scribe: in the CG we have a lot of vocabularies already
... we also have a browser API that was done with Mozilla a long time ago
... then there is the protocol spec, the Web Commerce Spec
... do we want those in yet or just notes and questions?
... while we should spec out a browser API we def don't want the browser vendors in the critical path for v1
... we can use polyfills for now
... we also don't want banks in the ciritical path (also take a long time to move on large tech changes)
... not sure there is sufficient incentives for banks (maybe for retailers)

ian: i don't think I have explicitly put anyone in critical path

manu: we need people to understand that even though we want to deliver a browser API they are not in the critical path
... for some technology that is unavoidable - like credentials
... (credential issuers are in critical path)
... need to id the industries that are in the c path and then make sure we have some implementors lined up

ian: let's put those ques in the deployment discussion agenda

manu: decisions we make on deliverables pull people into or out of critical path

ian: need to discuss (after establishign arch goals) who we are putting in c path

manu: do we want rec track deliverables added before f2f?

ian: what would you add?

manu: split apis into browser and REST
... split vocab into a few vocabs
... is it premature to have JSON-LD in there? need to still decide on data model (tree vs graph)

ian: let's discuss offline

manu: any other comments?

<manu> AdrianHB: No particular input yet - essentially the settlement stuff I've been looking at would fall into its own group.

<manu> AdrianHB: Based on capabilities and presentation, I think it might be something that could stand on its own.

<manu> AdrianHB: I don't think Settlement is going to be a v1 deliverable - version 1 payments stuff can survive w/o settlement advances. We may get it done quickly, we may not - not a dependency for v1.

<Ryladog> +1

<manu> AdrianHB: I'd like to do settlement sooner than later, let's put ideas in front of the group to see what they think.

Capabilities Presentation

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

manu: pat and I discussed preso. it's geared toward getting consensus on the organisation of the doc
... looking to get agreement that the categories make sense and also get the group up to speed on what has been done
... what are the capabilities? What to do next and what to do after? Discuss roles
... interactions of roles
... do the groupings makes sense, anything to add/change?
... avoiding details as this will be a first look for a lot of people
... Was going to propose that we show what details might look like for a select set of capabilities

Ryladog: Will we not show the doc?

manu: We will but it doesn't have too much detail

<Ryladog> Agree to show a sample

Ryladog: +1 to some examples

manu: need to decide the mechanics of how we'll work on this doc

ian: wiki?

manu: looks terrible and moving to respec is going to take ages

ryladog: suggestions: 1 save to PC and work on static html
... 2) put in Word doc or similar and work on that

manu: will take an offline snapshot on Friday

<manu> AdrianHB: What are the specific mechanics for how we do this.

manu: we won't edit the doc directly, we will have high level discussion and capture in wiki

Use Cases Presentation

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

manu: we may not need the full hour
... we will be talking capabilities before use cases
... use case session is about prioritisation
... determine what use cases we care about for v1
... ensure everyone understands we are not going for 100% coverage in v1
... also need to note that there are missing uses cases
... diminishing returns on use cases as we are pretty clear on the req for v1

ian: 1 - got a preso today from leandro who wants to share the boleto (sp?) use case, do we have time for this?

manu: I want to. Not sure it will change anything ito v1

ian: it will sit in the "after v1" stuff discussion

manu: let's keep it short (5 mins) and then there shouldn't be a problem

ian: I want to focus on use cases from W3C IG participants

<ShaneM_> +1

ian: we will consider others but those from the group should get priority

<Ian> +1 to closing the loop

manu: I see this as mostly about closing the loop on the use cases, is that a good goal?

ian: yes
... getting consensus and then inviting more conversation on day 3
... there are enough new people that it's worth spending time on this
... also ensuring that the message is clear around not being in v1 does not mean out of scope

manu: we are looking at debit pull payments in v1 because it's not common to do push today
... there aren't appropriate use cases for push
... suggest we discuss

ryladog: +1 for discussion
... are we getting Gates Foundation reps?

manu: yes, only at round table

ryladog: great because having their use cases on the agenda makes them feel that their involvement is important

ian: +1 but let's not give the impression that we will def be adding gates foundation use cases to our document

manu: changing wording on F2F collatoral to reflect that

ian: like the goal of closing the loop and getting group up to speed
... next goal is to discuss the fact that we can still process new use cases
... third goal is to look at how our use cases compare with other uses cases from external orgs
... part of the meeting theme is: do we have the right set and priority of work?
... fourth goal is to assist participants to submit new use cases in future

manu: I also want to go over the payment agent arch priorities doc
... this gives a view of what is to come

[manu talks through doc]

<manu> AdrianHB: Yes, today the payment flow is completely ignorant of settlement.

<manu> AdrianHB: In version 1, we're optimizing payments that already exist.

<manu> AdrianHB: The Settlement stuff may be parallel to version 2 - priority will come from how many people are ready to participate.

ryladog: have national payment assoc of india joined?

ian: they have and etherium but haven't really participated

manu: priorities doc isn't completely in alignment with capabilities doc so hope we don't cause confusion
... last call tomorrow, please give thoughts to agenda

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/Payments/

<Ian> +1 I will do an update

- DRAFT -

Web Payments IG Payment Architecture Task Force (Thursday)

11 Jun 2015

Attendees

Contents

Roadmap Updates

Payment Architecture WG Proposal

Capabilities Presentation

Use Cases Presentation

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output