Web Payments Interest Group
09 Nov 2015


See also: IRC log


AdrianHB, Cyril, Erik, Ian, Kris, Manu, MattC, Vignet, dezell, padler, yaso


<dezell> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Nov/0010.html

<dezell> Meeting: Web Payment IG Telcon

<scribe> scribe: Ian

Meeting schedule

<manu> I'd be happy w/ every other Monday.

David: We may move to a schedule of every other Monday for this meeting (for the time being)
... we welcome people sending agenda items to the list.
... also, thanks to the IG and W3C for a productive TPAC meeting.
... and for launch of the WG.

<dezell> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Nov/0009.html

Activity refresh

David: Summarized in that email a list of potential actions.
... each one to write a proposal; see template (and repository): https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015

CyrilV: Just to mention that I am currently working to create wiki entries around SCAI.
... let's add this to the list of topics of interest.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about SCAI's target implementation?

Manu: On the topic of SCAI (but not for today's call); I'd like to understand if you are proposing this as an implementation target or if you would like to see some of the technology that SCAI is using integrated, or if you think that this is for later

Cyril: I don't know yet; I have done a presentation but the job is now to create a larger explanation.
... then we can discuss as a group the prioritization
... I understand that there was some interest at Sapporo and that more detail is required.

David: We request that people who are interested in writing proposals write them in time for our 23 November meeting

IJ: who has responded to the email committing to the action and time frame?

David: Manu, Kris, AdrianHB

<Erik> I replied as well

<manu> re: capabilities doc - yes valuable - trying to find time to help w/ Core and Security.

Erik: I will write down four topic ideas (though I don't expect to do all 4; just the ones the group prioritizes)

From: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015

eg to https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/Credentials

<manu> s/Eric/Erik/

Next FTF meeting

David: Zooming in on end of February FTF meeting on the West Coast US.

Credentials Task Force Proposal Review

<dezell> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015#Credentials_Task_Force

<manu> Credentials Task Force proposal: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Nov/0004.html

Manu: At FTF meeting there was interest but no consensus on direction.
... the proposal is to create a task force to explore some of the questions raised at TPAC
... and to answer the questions (or identify whether we need to answer them before a WG starts)
... we've proven there is INTEREST but not yet proven there's enough interest for a WG or what W3C's value-add would be.
... the proposal is to create a task force of the WPIG
... the goal is to document further the hard questions raised


<manu> I hadn't seen that yet - very helpful!

<manu> Ian: Is that a good summary?

<manu> Ian: I heard more support for modifying existing technologies.

<manu> Ian: To get to the next place, I think we need to be very concrete about the Task Force should answer.

<manu> Ian: We should frame it correctly so group can formulate a response and focus on the right questions.

<manu> Ian: For example, in the problem statement - there is a long list of desired features - that seems like a solution statement. For example, you list problems - list - in my mind, those are desired characteristics of a solution. Rather than seek consensus on solution as an end point, seek consensus on data from survey, etc.

dezell: +1 to IJ
... speaking as an IG participation, I believe that this is a worthy place for the IG to go

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to Ian's questions/suggestions.

Manu: On Ian's points...we do have a problem statement on there with a bullet list...that's pulled from survey data.
... People who have not been involved with the CG are asking good questions like "adjusting existing technology v. new" we have to answer those questions.

<manu> Ian: My comment was not to dismiss survey data - I think it may belong in a different section. When I see "Problem Statement", but you list solutions - there is a mismatch.

<manu> Ian: If people are saying "here's what we want a solution to do", we can probably work back to problem statement that drove people to say that - one way to frame the work is to confirm the expression of those problem statements. Not everything is going to look the same - we need to tease out desirable characteristics of a system vs. business drivers.

<manu> Ian: For example, Eric asked "what data is regulated". That's a broad question, premature to talk about it, good list to keep in mind - should the WG charter become something we're developing where regulation is much further down the line.

<manu> Ian: I don't know what scope should be - too soon to talk about what data is regulated, don't know what problem we're solving yet. Good to keep them in mind, broad questions for future. Bullet list under Problem Statement is more like a feature list.

<manu> +1, thanks Ian

<manu> (in advance)

Erik: Not saying that I'm against credentials. I think that a solution will consist of multiple layers. We must be careful to not ignore existing technologies; people have adopted things like JOSE and OAuth
... I think any new credentials standard needs to take these into account otherwise won't be adopted.

<manu> Agree w/ Erik - multiple layers will be important. While I don't know how we'd get OAuth2 / SAML / Open ID Connect compatible - interop is very important.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note we're not interested in disregarding, IMO and regulation is important.

Manu: I agree with Erik that regulation is an important topic. We have a list of things to discuss "at some point"
... need a clear problem statement for the task force and when to have the discussions (e.g., compatibility with existing formats)
... Will continue to work on the proposal (capabilities, etc.).

(IJ thinks that 23 Nov is the date of next review)

Manu: On task force operations - one thing that was proposed was that the problem set not be limited to payments
... the proposal is that the task force "be composed of representatives from the Financial sector, Education, Healthcare, and Government "
... I want to push back on proposal to narrow to payments since people outside payments have been active.
... but then we would need some sort of approval from W3C.

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to talk about outsider input

<manu> Ian: One solution is to create a new CG with an explicit charter to flesh out problem statements. You will have no problem getting participation in that CG as Jeff Jaffe pointed out in face-to-face meeting. The focus of that CG would not be working on particular tech solutions, but rather than taking it to next level of community buy-in with ultimate deliverable of a draft charter. Different focus.

<manu> Ian: That IG could say that's the vehicle that the IG could engage - people from IG that are interested in participating would then join that group.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest time for telecons.

<manu> Ian: We have Interledger group asking - awareness - IG is ok to split effort off operationally - we'll then take them back up - in case of ILP - on ongoing basis.

manu: So we talked about this with the credentials CG last week and they want to shift the focus of the credentials CG to this task force
... they are happy to drop the technical work to focus on answering these questions

IJ: I think it may be worth taking into account previous discussions of naming.

manu: We can create a new CG.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to wonder who these people are - but fine to start another CG.

<manu> Ian: I don't know if this is just about naming - group has been working for some time on particular approach - so to show up in particular community where JSON-LD is way to go, that is disuasive to a sense of neutrality that will make people feel they have a chance to be heard. The CG could continue to do work on specs - there will be bright line between that work and bridge between different tech/community. Should not be shoe-horned into existing CG.

Erik: I agree, Manu, @@ but also to Ian's point that it would be good to create a group not focused on a particular implementation

dezell: The other possibility is the IG

(IJ: but that gets us back to the problem of participation)

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask what the name of the new CG is

<Erik> For the record, I do NOT I support a new CG.

"Signed Claims"

<Erik> I think what work has been done is valuable

<manu> "attestations"

<manu> "assertions"

<manu> Ian: There are assertions, attributes, attestations - show up w/ 4-5 ideas - sensitive to comments that people have made, that'll become part of the discussion.

<manu> Ian: It's not really about authentication, it's about shipping around credentials - caused some confusion - let's have that be an explicit part of the discussion.

<manu> Thanks all - will refine proposal.


<dezell> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Nov/0000.html

<manu> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3rduub/w3c_includes_bitcoin_in_new_standards_and_tools/

Manu: Discussion now split into 3 different threads.

<manu> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3rl3f6/the_status_of_bitcoin_in_the_w3c_web_payments/

Manu: I tried to reset some expectations on Reddit.
... I think the response was positive
... including getting some calls to participate
... but I think we need to do more work to express how bitcoin fits into the work we are trying to do
... also there's an upcoming meeting about bitcoin in Hong Kong
... would be great if someone from the W3C community could go

Adrian: We are planning some engagement...I think the WG launch has increased interest
... having involvement is great, but the WG scope is scheme-neutral
... but we should note that lack of participation does not imply bitcoin will be off the table
... I think IG participation is a better fit
... we'll keep you posted on the conversation

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest that our recent engagement could be used positively by encouraging the Foundation to be advocates for our work at least

AdrianHB: I think a good outcome is clarity on what we are doing, how they can benefit, how people can get involved...and that we find some champions for our work in the community

Erik: I have done a lot of outreach into the bitcoin community in NY
... but I think it has been largely ignored.

Next meeting

dezell: Unless we hear proposals for agenda items, our next meeting will be 23 November.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/11/09 16:01:21 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/Present +dezell/Present+ dezell/
FAILED: s/Eric/Erik/
Found Scribe: Ian
Inferring ScribeNick: Ian
Present: AdrianHB Cyril Erik Ian Kris Manu MattC Vignet dezell padler yaso
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Nov/0010.html
Got date from IRC log name: 09 Nov 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/09-wpay-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]