<scribe> scribe: manu

Web Payments WG Charter

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2015/06/payments-wg-charter.html

dezell: We're getting ready to send to membership

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

Ian: Link to FAQ from front of charter - as a result of some conversations - there were additional comments to the charter.
... We've stabilized again - unless there are objections, let me get the latest update into IRC.

<Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Jul/0234.html

Ian: To summarize - we've moved some definitions into the charter
... There were some other edits - triggered response from Mozilla - further discussion resulted in the sentence being removed.
... Two thoughts on privacy - 1) we should require as little information as possible - 2) we should avoid leakage and respect privacy.
... We brought Vision statement into charter, rest is editorial. What happens next is that I go back to W3C Management with it.
... Still working on Chairs.
... Hope WPIG gives a +1 to send it back to management, we may be delayed a week looking for Chairs.
... Any questions.

dezell: No questions, can we see +1s?

<DJackson> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<dezell> +1

<Erik> +1

<Ian> PROPOSED: Request that W3M get member review

PROPOSAL: Send charter to W3M for approval.

<AdrianHB> +1 to send to W3CM

<Ian> +1

<collier-matthew> +1

<nicktr> +1

RESOLUTION: Request that W3M get member review.

<nick> +1

dezell: A special thanks to everyone that worked on it

Capabilities Document

<dezell> https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/capabilities/index.html

dezell: We want to publish a version of this to go along with the charter.
... It's not required to publish soon, but would like to do so if possible.

<padler> hope to be with you momentarily

<collier-matthew> manu: the plan right now is to try and do fixups by 15th of August

<dezell> manu: plan to publish by August 15.

<collier-matthew> manu: still unknown if it will go through W3 publication process

<jheuer> * sorry for being late

<collier-matthew> ... I suggest we publish to the IG space which is faster

<collier-matthew> ... and once it's in better shape we can put it through W3 process

Katie: Truly appreciate that editor's added my name as an author - if you do keep my name on there, change my association to Knowability.

dezell: I think this document could be a big help to the WG, we'll plan to have it fully done several weeks in advance of TPAC.

Pat: Hope is to get editorial content in by August 15th, then get a solid draft done several weeks before TPAC.

<Ian> pat: Purpose of doc is to be used across the various payments groups at W3C on a shared vision of concepts and terminology

Pat: We want all the groups working on this stuff to have continuity of key concepts.
... The payments WG and Roadmap - we need to round out the capabilities document now that stuff has been done on the other docs.
... We did talk about the core audience for this document is not W3M, it's more the people that are going to be on the WGs, they'd benefit the most from this document.

Manu: Agreed.

Pat: That being said, anyone that has interest - please put comments on mailing list - make edits directly to document - it's in ReSpec and in Github, so we can track all changes, etc.

dezell: Did you want to talk about anything specific that's been changed, or are you ready to accept a few comments.

Pat: There has been no new content since the doc has been updated.
... I'm going to be adding content over the next few weeks.
... Since Roadmad and use cases have taken a lot of interest over last couple of weeks, now that we have a lull, we'll focus on Capabilities.
... Also, since we're coordinating with Faster Payments Task Force now, we should see what gaps exist. Having a deeper discussion on this between now and mid september, would be good.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest a way forward for Capabilities doc over next 3 weeks.

<dezell> manu: authors/editors need to focus on putting in content for the next three weeks.

<collier-matthew> manu: to take what Pat just said and make it more concrete. Authors and editors need to focus on putting content in the document

<padler> +1

<collier-matthew> manu: I think the timeline is, next 2-3 weeks the editors and authors add content then we start getting review comments, and the editors and authors make another pass to get in a solid state several weeks before TPaC

Katie: I'm wondering if we have the capability of "online EMV and NFC" concepts?
... How do we talk about connectivity capabilities?

dezell: Do we have any device capabilities in the document yet?

padler: As of right now, there are no device capabilities - the goal of the capabilities document was mostly about higher-level interactions.
... If the communication mechanism has to be between EMV or NFC - then that would be highlighted in section 4.
... Each one of those players on the wheel are going to have different ways of communicating with each other. We have to add in things like the protocol, those are the editorial comments that Manu is suggesting.
... Yes, we do need to put that stuff in there, Katie.

Katie: Also, what David brought up - we may need to spell out something w/ the Secure Element, etc.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to speak about device capabilities

Ian: I agree with Pat's characterization for the most part - when we are talking about communications, we often don't focus on the underlying infrastructure - we don't talk about wires and WiFi because we expect that there are communication channels that should be there. I don't think we should be doing a lot more in this space, unless there are "offline" usecases.
... So it could be that in some use cases, it is much more concrete and limited - what is expected..
... We're not talking about general Internet connectivity - this is a bit different form W3C - where we assume Internet connectivity... we may want to mention NFC, Bluetooth, Biometrics, etc. That's a part of underlying communication pathway support.

Katie: We are talking about the Internet here, we're not talking about the ability for an EMV type connection? That is a capability, isn't it?

Ian: Where we are talking about stuff circulating on the Internet - we don't need to talk about that. However, you could go to the grocery store and put your phone over point of sale and expect some change to happen - that's probably not the Internet.
... If some information has to be exchanged where that information is critical - we should be more clear about that. Where Web protocols depend on Internet connectivity, we don't talk about it. If it's a use case that goes outside of Internet (like NFC), then we may want to mention it.

Katie: We need to have a capability to interface w/ that component.

Doug: Yes, we do need to mention connectivity - such as offline - one of the components of capabilities - not a problem, but we shouldn't dwell on it.

dezell: We can safely address this as an issue not for the Internet part of the Web, but for the Open Web Platform

Manu: +1 to what David Just said.

dezell: We call this "proximity capability" - could be done via QRCodes, NFC, BluetoothLE, all parts of the Open Web Platform.

jheuer: I agree with David. We do use IP, we do use Web technology where we wouldn't consider "the Internet" or "the Web" - proximity situations.
... Most important part, we can create a secure association in proximity case. We need to take care of that - we need to take that into account.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to talk about the format of the request and how it may impact the capabilities..

padler: To go back to earlier conversations - it's always been about the protocol, information that's passed. Network or Internet of two devices or millions of devices - ubiquitous payment protocol, it shouldn't care about how each endpoint collects the information, just that the messages are exchanged.
... If I'm standing in a brick and mortar store - invoice - that message could go through my own connection, then go to backend systems w/o ever having to go through other systems. Every endpoint/node that participates in ecosystem should be able to support inputs and outputs in fairly standard ways.
... Each endpoint could not only collect the information, but pass the information on - idempotently. Format is the key.

dezell: Did anyone have anything else for technical discussion.

<collier-matthew> manu: I think we would like to hit Aug 15th and we'll try our best, but it might slip by a week.

<collier-matthew> ... everything after that will be review comments

<collier-matthew> ... more background, we were hoping to get something out so that reviewers could look a the document without becoming confused.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to add context...

<collier-matthew> ... August 15th is an aggressive date for getting that done.

padler: To add to that, the reason is the key audience is not necessarily the people reading charter/roadmap - so we had a lot of discussion - do it fast or make it clear. We're erring on the side to make the document readable for WGs. It is valuable for people communicating charter/roadmap to make sure that they understand that we're working on capabilities document, goals of that document, broad connective document for multiple work groups.
... I don't know if other IGs in W3C have done that in the past. This is connective tissue between groups.

<Ian> (Ian appreciate's Pat's characterization of the purpose of the doc)

dezell: Ok, any other discussion of capabilities.

Beginning to prepare for FTF meetings

External Reviews

Beginning to prepare for FTF meetings

Ian: You had some things you wanted to cover for FTF meetings?
... For June F2F meeting, we started working on Agenda in April. It's about that time for October meeting. We wanted folks to be aware of that - key thing is launch of the WG - preparing how we are going to bring discussion to them - they will have their own agenda - we will work together to make sure they mesh well. In previous calls - we said one way to build agenda is for each task force to develop plan for their next priorities.
... I suggest to chairs that we continue to work on this - especially from Task Forces, hear about priorities.
... With the handoff of the charter to the management team, our group has to establish what it's next big topics are - phase 2 discussions, what's next in ecommerce, what's next in clearing/settlement/value web, what's next in identity/credentials, etc.
... More details requirements - those seem to be roughly two big areas of work - how are we going to make good use of our face-to-face time.

<Ian> manu: I remember that we asked the task forces for priorities

<Ian> ...3 or 4 weeks ago after the FTF

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about Task Force next priorities

Ian: Yes, I was talking about the 3-4 weeks ago thing.

dezell: I need to reiterate that request - that request got covered up by charter rush.
... Other thing that's related, check on actions in tracker
... The list has gotten too large, we need to clear those out.
... I think we should put actions in there for Task Forces to provide priorities. I'll take an action to do that.

<scribe> ACTION: DavidE to add actions for each Task Force to document priorities. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/08/03-wpay-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'DavidE'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/track/users>.

<scribe> ACTION: dezell to add actions for each Task Force to document priorities. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/08/03-wpay-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Add actions for each task force to document priorities. [on David Ezell - due 2015-08-10].

<dezell2> http://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/track/actions/open

External Reviews

dezell: These are somewhat controversial, but important eventually

<Erik> I am here

dezell: I don't know if our group will offer any comments, we're all free to offer comments - we're also free to band together. I think we should do that. Manu, you presented a possibility on reviewing FPTF Evaluation Criteria - we should look at making progress on that, but we won't this week. What I put in the Agenda was something about Docbox forum that Erik has put together.
... Erik, do you want to comment on WatchDox

Erik: That was in reference to Manu's email - Secure doesn't need to talk until August, but will try to set something up by then.

dezell: Being well informed on other activities is part of the value of the IG
... Others will be involved in technical aspects, the IG will navigate all the other standards coming out.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk about FPTF

erik: I've authorized everybody that asked.

<collier-matthew> manu: what we discussed last week was applying the fed criteria

<collier-matthew> ... after speaking with the Fed what we can do is share the criteria with people whoare in both this group and the FPTF

<collier-matthew> ... there are about 6 of us

<collier-matthew> ... The criteria will be made more public in September

<collier-matthew> ... In the meantime there is a F2F meeting at the end of Sept in Chicago, and we wanted to have something from WPIG

Ian: That comment is a good lead-in for my comment - the External Liasons task force is very important to keeping us plugged in. I want to make sure that the effort of the IG is well understood, that there is a clear reason for us doing certain things.
... For example, Erik is trying to get access to documents setup for us - to be informed about those documents is very helpful. It's not clear to me what action we need to be taking w/ those documents. For example, I don't want to spend time on the call to know what it is that we're doing.
... Knowing about them is helpful because we should know about them.
... Manu mentioned the Faster Payments Evaluation Criteria - I have no problem with people in that group working together, I wouldn't make that a formal activity until we all have access to that document.
... Beyond that, we need to determine as a group whether providing feedback is what we need to do. That one, I understand that we need to make sure our work is relevant to key stakeholders. That's just one country, we have to be sensitive of that. FOr example, ISO12812, it's not clear to me as an IG that we're doing anything other than have awareness.
... I would ask that the External Task Force, when they bring these documents to us, I'd like the External Liasons to be clear about the importance of the documents and why they're important to this group.

DJackson: The Faster Payments Task Force could take up a lot of resources, don't know if that would be a useful endeavor.
... Just for clarity, Oracle joined FPTF and SPTF of US Fed.

dezell: To clarify this particular bit, I don't expect us to wade in deeply. There is an important division that we can help clarify - that will make our life easier.
... We need to talk about "Ubiquity" aspect - W3C could add value there, high on agenda. Agreeing on backhaul mechanisms is what FPTF should be focused on. Making sure we get that message to them as an IG will help us.
... I'm in favor of engaging, but if we can't do it as an IG, that would be fine.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to comment on context re: tf's

padler: To highlight something that Manu said - even though the FPTF have been convened by the US Fed, the organizations that are participating are global, there aren't many of them that's just looking at US - they're mostly looking internationally.
... Because of the type and composition of folks in that group, they have a strategy /and/ implementation bent to them. The symbiotic part of it is that the W3C is working on the standards that would most likely be required for good solutions that rank well in the criteria.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask who else is on that task force.

padler: The closer we collaborate, the better of we are.

<Ian> (Ian is on the faster payments task force)

<collier-matthew> manu: who's on the faster payments task force?

Ian: I move that the FPTF not be brought back to the Agenda until we can all get access to that document.

<AdrianHB> +1 to not putting on IG agenda, think it should be on the external reviews TF agenda until the TF has something for the IG to do

Ian: I think a good way to bring it back would be: We did the evaluation against the criteria, here's how the capabilities should be changed.

<Ian> (Or whatever doc, such as use cases)

<jheuer> * Sry, Need to jump out for the next meeting. Bye

dezell: Yes, heard and understood.

<collier-matthew> manu: quickly, half of me agrees with Ian

<collier-matthew> manu: the other half thinks we need to present something to the FPTF

Ian: We need to make it clear to them that the best that we can do is say: "Here is an evaluation by folks in both groups, we may be able to do something better once everyone has access to the criteria"

dezell: Yes, understood.

manu: Understood.

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/connectivity capabilities./connectivity capabilities?/
Succeeded: s/add comment/add content/
Succeeded: s/Docbox/WatchDox/
Found Scribe: manu
Inferring ScribeNick: manu
Present: Nick DavidE Manu MattC dsinger DJackson Erik AdrianHB Katie Haritos-Shea Ian Doug nicktr jheuer

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/08/03-wpay-minutes.html
People with action items: davide dezell

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)