Web Payments Interest Group Use Cases Task Force -- 16 Jul 2015

Charter Update

<AdrianHB> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/charters/payments-wg-charter.html

AdrianHB: great comments thanks to those who took the time to review
... I think I have responded to all comments, if not please advise
... Please continue discussion re charter via mailing
... we're on track to finish on schedule
... while ian was away, a copy was made from CVS to github

Ian is linking to latest document

Ian will review latest drafts

AdrianHB: comments on roadmap, glossary and charter should have been received yesterday

Ian: was thrilled to excited to see lots of activity while on vacation

<AdrianHB> From minutes of meeting 13:

<AdrianHB> July 13th: All comments for use cases are due.

<AdrianHB> July 15th: Time stamped editor's draft of Use Cases.

<AdrianHB> All comments for Roadmap are due.

<AdrianHB> All comments for Glossary are due.

<AdrianHB> All comments for Web Payments Charter are due.

<AdrianHB> July 17th: Time stamped editor's draft of Roadmap.

<AdrianHB> Time stamped editor's draft of Glossary.

<AdrianHB> July 20th: Final draft of Web Payments Charter.

<AdrianHB> All comments for Capabilities are due.

<AdrianHB> July 27th: Time stamped editor's draft of Capabilities.

<AdrianHB> Aug 12th: FPWD of Capabilities.

AdrianHB: anyone who wants to comment any further?
... there have been many changes in the last few days.

<Ian> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/charters/payments-wg-charter.html

Ian: was there anything controversial that merits attention.

AdrianHB: I don't think so, but check the mailing list.

there is a request from mountie to include escrow use cases in charter.

mountie has submitted a draft use case

Ian: open question formalize a registration

AdrianHB: registration is now a requirement
... there are questions surrounding the use of the word 'wallet'
... not enough debate to hold up charter
... there will likely be further discussion about wallet terminology

Ian: if there is controversy around the definition...

<zkoch> Agreed with Adrian

AdrianHB: definition of wallet in the charter does not constrain

and should not constrain

Ian: language regarding wallet should not constrain the group.

<Ian> -1 to its own section

AdrianHB: definition is in an aside now, with a definition that allows for expansion

<AdrianHB> From the charter: "This definition of wallet may expand in the future to include other items people find in physical wallets such as digital receipts and digital credentials. What the group defines today as a wallet service may in future offer new functionality that even makes the wallet metaphor entirely inappropriate. Therefor the label "wallet", while appropriate today, should not imply any limitation on the functionality that this service may be

<AdrianHB> expected to provide under future versions of any standards produced by the group."

Ian: minor objection to putting wallet in its own section

also, this breaks the charter template

no good reason to break the charter template

it's a matter of scope

AdrianHB: perhaps we can discuss this matter further when manu joins the call

<Ian> IJ suggests putting back in scope (since about scope) with clear language about "not constraining"

<Ian> IJ: Kudos to the group!

AdrianHB: my suggestion would be that Ian is the last person who needs to review latest drafts
... if no more questions, we can move on to next agenda item.

<AdrianHB> zakim take up next

Use Cases

AdrianHB: asks ian if he has looked at latest draft of use cases

Ian: no

AdrianHB: manu has been working on use cases to incorporate comments from numerous sources
... use cases doc is looking good
... any discussion needed about use cases?

<AdrianHB> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/ED/use-cases/2015-07-15/index.html

AdrianHB: we were expecting to have all comments submitted by Monday.
... working draft to be released next week.

Ian: one thing I think is missing is list of changes from previous draft
... it might be useful to start a section to track changes
... it would be nice for readers to see what has changed

AdrianHB: that came up on the charter as well

manu was going to help AdrianHB with a diff version

Ian: the diff tool is for people who saw the previous one
... diff is only necessary if group feels like it is
... we should document changes between working drafts

AdrianHB: if anyone wants to see changes on latest, changes were posted as separate commits

commits were made based on single suggestions

Ian: that document should allow you to generate a diff document that could be saved

AdrianHB: outstanding task for use cases is a set of changes since last working draft

<Ian> ACTION: Ian to request to Manu to create a diff document and summary of changes (appendix) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/16-wpay-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Request to manu to create a diff document and summary of changes (appendix) [on Ian Jacobs - due 2015-07-23].

Ian: we have two things - a diff generated document, then a summary in the draft

AdrianHB: the use cases document in now closed for comment.

Ian: my expectation is that the document is available for the AC review.

which starts in August

Roadmap

AdrianHB: should we address this topic without manu on the call?

<AdrianHB> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/ED/roadmap/2015-07-17/index.html

AdrianHB: document now includes a diagram that was intended only for the mailing list
... I would like to think that what we have here is creating a high level flow of messages and messaging standard

that allows for new schemes

will not require payment network

will allow for an agnostic web payment scheme

Ian: what discussion has been happening regarding this?

AdrianHB: community group has been created
... group looks at payment schemes
... 'internet of value' community group

part is web settlement

my understanding is that interest group has broad view

this group is about flows

keeping it's eye on security and authentication

future work done by paments group would include work from credentials and security

comment was made that in the future it will be easier to re-charter in a year to increase scope

than to think about web-commerce working group

or chartering other new groups

Ian: I don't think it's off topic at all

you've helped me understand the roadmap

Ian: diagram description should set expectation that groups are much fuzzier than the first two
... I haven't read closely enough, I don't mind pictures shows a particular vision

but it should specify clearly the phases of development

Ian: i'm referring to the coordination picture

AdrianHB: that's the 4th iteration of Pat's picture

Ian: we need really clear status information about the groups.

manu: yes I agree with you Ian
... worked on showing status information
... we need to be clear about the status of the various groups

Ian: it could be something like 'now', 'future'
... it's nice to have a big picture

manu: the google doc is open

Ian: will be focusing on charter

manu: will update diagram
... where are we on the agenda?

Ian: summarizes meeting

manu: will work on the diff and changes discussed earlier in the meeting.

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/ED/use-cases/2015-07-15/diff-20150416.html

manu: I still need to add the summary of changes.

Ian: I don't have strong preference as to where changes are placed in the document.

AdrianHB: color could be used to indicate status of groups

regarding diagram

manu: will try implementing color in the diagram

<Ian> stealing++

manu: the three major changes to roadmap

terminology/glossary

we have a unified glossary now

thanks to shane

<Ian> shaneM++

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/ED/roadmap/2015-07-17/index.html#goals

coordination with the roadmap.

manu: it still needs some work
... has some questions for AdrianHB about the diagram.

AdrianHB: will make correction to diagram
... would appreciate comments about flow

manu: hasn't reviewed closely

Ian: what is origin of diagram?

people want to know what's different and how it adds value.

high level we're helping to integrate existing payment schemes into web and browsers.

Does diagram help illustrate what is missing today and what the new standards will add.

AdrianHB: we can annotate further.

missing parts of the diagram: it's not obvious that messages are proxied via web API

as soon as we get into a lot of detail, it tends towards a single use case.

Ian: another way to comment...
... the deliverable section of charter talks about 3 deliverables

is it possible to annotate diagram so that it illustrates what wp 1.0 will deliver

diagram should illustrate what is new, and how it's a benefit

AdrianHB: we wanted to accomodate use cases where the user agent is not a browser, possibly web based.

it may not be easy to indicate where APIs exist

Ian: it's a question that will come up

we may want additional diagrams for more specific cases

in use cases document, there are more specific flows

possibly having additional diagrams for use cases

<Ian> yaso_ are you here?

AdrianHB: is happy to work with Ian on diagrams

Ian: yaso is working on diagrams

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/track/actions/113

Ian: she has action 113

she is supposed to organize a flow diagram

manu: responding to Ian's comments
... I chose this diagram because it's high level

answers questions about the overall flow in a simple way

we may want to have another diagram illustrating the deliverables

manu if we can share diagrams that would be good

manu: simplifying the diagram further would be good

<AdrianHB> +1 to phases

manu: 'version' has been replaced with 'phases'

section 4.2 and 4.3 did not change

not sure what to do about capabilities document

it will not be complete

before roadmap

at end is an informative reference

for cross-referencing documents

manu: the main question is... capabilities needs work, what do we want to do with the capabilities section?

<Ian> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/ED/roadmap/use-cases/index.html#uc-website

Ian: the capabilities document...

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/capabilities/index.html

one thing I recall is the relationship with other docs section

should the roadmap have that section as well?

these are materials we're presenting to AC

here's a vision, roadmap, use cases.

the capabilities work is ongoing

capabilities may not need to be in the roadmap

capabilities feel like implementation

<AdrianHB> +1 for taking out capabilities

roadmap is about 'what', not 'how'

<manu> +1 to take out capabilities out of Roadmap

if someone would like to know 'how' they can review capabilities document.

manu: I think the text could be improved

<Ian> Proposed /Payments/Roadmap with Editor's Draft look

manu: how should doc be styled

Ian: as an editors draft
... one thing I wanted to do was add vision link to IG homepage

manu: in the next week...

we still need an updated working draft

Ian: chairs can say we would like to publish draft on a particular date.

manu: roadmap will be placed into payments IG, along with vision.
... what's going on with the charter?

Ian: is going to be reviewing recent work today...

<dezell> +1 to Ian

manu: re wallet, did not intend for wallet to be moved out.

AdrianHB: the wallet can go wherever Ian recommends

Ian: will copy github version for management team.

AdrianHB: the only outstanding item for the charter is to incorporate final comments from mountie

Ian: I will wait until Monday to send anything to management team.

dezell: I want to put marker down for feedback

thanks to the team

manu: do we need another call tomorrow or better to sync offline?

- DRAFT -

Web Payments Interest Group Use Cases Task Force
16 Jul 2015

Attendees

Contents

Charter Update

Use Cases

Roadmap

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

- DRAFT -

Web Payments Interest Group Use Cases Task Force 16 Jul 2015

Attendees

Contents

Charter Update

Use Cases

Roadmap

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

Web Payments Interest Group Use Cases Task Force
16 Jul 2015