See also: IRC log
<dezell> -
<Ian> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=md925df38d320b01c9a671b7bc43351fc
<burdges> ? I cannot click on them either.
<scribe> scribenick: manu
dezell: Welcome back from the
break everyone!
... We have had some dial-in issues, we'll figure them out and
let the group know later.
<scribe> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Nov/0074.html
dezell: We're trying to figure out if the interest group has the bandwidth to chase the current set of proposals.
<collier-matthew> webex link: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=md925df38d320b01c9a671b7bc43351fc
dezell: We need to know if you're
willing to put work behind other folks topics - help them
forward with that work.
... You need to help, so when it's your turn, you will also get
help :)
... We're here to support each other and get work done.
<evert> s/ webex link: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=md925df38d320b01c9a671b7bc43351fc//
dezell: We have ISO20022 today,
SCAI, Capabilities, Security, and Interledger
... on Security, Tokenization and Identity Provider might be
moving into Verifiable Claims?
... I need to sharpen the message on E-Commerce, need to do
some work on that.
... Let's do ISO20022 first.
kris: Proposal for an ISO20022
Harmonization Task Force - this is a follow-on to the proposal
I gave during Sapporo.
... It's clear that Web Payments is in the financial space -
ISO20022 helps you standardize flows for any financial
transaction. The traditional banks are ISO20022 enabled - the
goal of this group is to investigate that when there is a
communication between Web Payments role, that that
communication happens through an ISO20022 message/API/using
ISO20022 components so interoperability on financial side is
covered.
... That's the minimal.
... If there are other flows where financial institutions
aren't participants - that could be work on as well, but less
important.
... Looking at problem statement.
kris: If this initiative is
creating its own standard, someone will have to transform these
pieces of data into ISO20022 component/structure as soon as it
hits the bank side.
... Given that Web Payments is starting from scratch wrt. these
flows - it would be a good idea to develop them using ISO20022.
Deliverables - help the flows task force and definition of
actual flows to make sure they're using ISO20022
components.
... At the same time, create a business justification for
submitting these flows to ISO20022 as well, so they become
official ISO20022 messages/flows/transactions. That would be
happening in parallel.
... Finally, the least sure of all the goals - ISO20022 uses
ASN.1 or XML - idea is that we'd start looking into JSON as
well - maybe even further and enable a RESTful design as
well.
... We're trying to see if W3C could collaborate w/ technical
side of ISO, modeling guidelines for APIs in JSON are similar -
ISO20022 could adopt rules that W3C comes up as JSON is
concerned.
... There is a meeting in Japan this week, we're going to
discuss this proposal as well - not from the same angle, but to
see if this is a good path forward. Should ISO20022 be involved
in this. Modeling guidelines to create APIs. Is it a good idea
to have this a part of ISO20022 - maybe Registration Authority
is going outside of it's permit - but we'll know soon if that's
the finding.
... This is a dependency that'll be resolved this week. Web
Payments, if they used ISO20022 compliant flows/messages, then
this task force has succeeded.
<Erik2> Manu, you sent out a github.io link with Web Payment Message 1.0 with an ISO 20022 example, if I remember right it was Example 7
Erik2: yes, I did :)
<Erik2> Can you provide that link again
Erik2: will find it, gimme a second, was going to bring that up.
dezell: Would the proposal need to say you want to create a task force.
<Erik2> I will bring it up now
dezell: You're asking for a Task
Force, right?
... q+ Erik
kris: This is a first time where
a different standards org would be submitting to ISO20022 RA -
it's new for me, so we'll have to figure out how this will
work.
... Would be helpful to figure out how to make all this work
together.
dezell: I'll help you get this task force started.
<dezell> 1 - support understanding
<dezell> 2 - alignment, subsetting?
<dezell> 3 - JSON translation
<dezell> 4 - RA approval
<AdrianHB> +1 to join TF
dezell: I have the following
observations...
... I think this is what we need the task force to do.
... Many people that look at ISO20022 thinks it's heavy. One of
the big leaps forward for 8583 - how do you use it in a
minimalist way.
... This kind of subsetting is good - will help adoption. JSON
translation is important, so is RA approval.
... I'll work with you to try and do that.
<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to ask about submission.
<Ian> scribenick: manu
<dezell> ACTION: dezell to reach out to kris about creating a task force. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/30-wpay-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-175 - Reach out to kris about creating a task force. [on David Ezell - due 2015-12-07].
<collier-matthew> manu: I'm supportive
<Ian> manu: I'm supportive of the work. I'm wondering how far some of this work will go and where the work will be done.
<collier-matthew> ... I'm wondering where the work will be done.
so we have Message formats: http://web-payments.github.io/web-payments-messaging/#payment-request
<collier-matthew> Here's a naive cut at what the message might look like.
<collier-matthew> ... the goal was to see what a JSON message might look like.
<collier-matthew> and how this would fit in with the REST API
So HTTP RESTful API for web payments: http://web-payments.github.io/web-payments-http-api/
<collier-matthew> ... there a couple of proposals in process.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask how much specification we'd be doing?
<Erik2> I was on the Queue
<collier-matthew> ... general +1 to the work, it's very necessary. We need a taskforce in operation soon.
<Erik2> Please ope
<Erik2> open
<scribe> scribenick: manu
<collier-matthew> ... I don't know how much we'll do in phase one. But there is work already happening and having a TF to coordinate the work would be helpful.
kris: I can answer this stuff in
the proposal - difficult for me to know what other groups are
doing stuff. Good feedback, I'll add to the proposal.
... We want these groups to work together.
dezell: Let's keep discussion at "what should we do next" level.
AdrianHB: A suggestion on how
ISO20022 fits into what we're doing, based on experience w/
ISO8583 - dealing w/ payments gateways.
... Regarding subsetting, in most cases when Web data exchange
is happening, it's a very small portion of the total message
that goes into a private payment gateway. When that message
goes to the bank, there are normally hundreds of fields that
are populated by the payment gateway, I don't think we should
presuppose that we're going to completely replace that
function.
... I think we should make it easier for payment gateways to do
their job, w/o thinking that a retail customer is exchanging
ISO20022 messages. Personal opinion, I don't think that's going
to happen any time soon (if ever).
... I think we need to think about what consumers are going to
do - turn web payments messages into an ISO20022 message. So,
my suggestion is that the proposal doesn't talk about using
ISO20022 messages, but we can reuse things out of data
dictionary, common terminology, developer friendly terminology
that we have to ISO20022 terminology.
... We want to make it easier to bridge the two. In the Web
spec, a payment message translates to payment instrument, here
are a few examples, etc.
... So, my suggestion is that we are careful about the scope in
this task force. We don't suggest we get Web Payments to use
ISO20022 messages, but we want them to work/interoperate well
with the same logical messages.
Erik: +1 on what Adrian said - if you take a look at example 7, ISO20022 payment request, there is no way we are going to send that from browser to back-end. Usually done between gateways and banks. They're going to have to formulate this message, but things like postal address could be modeled based on ISo20022, so it's easy to move between different message formats. maybe we only need 3-5 data structures total.
<AdrianHB> +1 to Erik's example of Postal Address as a good example of a data structure we should try to make common between our specs
Erik: As Adrian said, we want 5
bits of data, then the gateway will add another 100 pieces of
data.
... We will want to see if we have some data structures in
ISO20022 that we can re-use.
ian: What is the next step?
<Ian> actions?
dezell: I'm going to contact Kris and help get the task force setup.
kris: I would assume, based on
comments today, charter of task force will have to be changed
slightly - not a big change, need to figure out what components
would look like.
... We need to identify components that are relevant from
components-side. Whether that's a message or a bunch of
components, not religious about that.
dezell: What we heard from the
group today - there is concern in that area.
... The ISO 20022 Harmonization Task Force may come up with a
totally different way of handling that.
<AdrianHB> +1 to formation of TF
<collier-matthew> Ian: We want to make sure that there is consensus on the need for a TF and if the charter needs to be changed.
<collier-matthew> kris: I would like to see proposed changes to the charter.
Ian: Like other proposals, another round of edits on the proposal would be good before Task Force plunges in.
<AdrianHB> dezell and kris please include me any discussion on this going forward, would like to contribute
dezell: Fine with me
Kris: Maybe a way to address this is to have people that have comments come up with a proposal on how to change it.
Ian: I think that's helpful, if
you don't hear from people, it doesn't mean there is support
for the proposal. Because of limited resources, the IG have to
say "this is a priority problem to solve" - general observation
for all proposals.
... I think we need to actively support it.
manu: +1 to ISO20022 Harmonization proposal - I need it to do spec work.
Ian: We want to find things that
people want us to prioritize.
... offline, help and suggestions are good - but as team
contact - neutral stance - need to know from folks what is
going on.
dezell: We didn't do a formal vote for credentials work.
Ian: For credentials work, we're scheduling extra time - they're coming back w/ a revised proposal.
<Erik2> +1 ISO20022 Harmonization proposal - I support and will join ... a little ....
<CyrilV> +1
https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/SCAI
CyrilV: I won't go over proposal
again - as a starter - there is some good reception at TPAC -
also support from others after TPAC.
... I've detailed this a bit more on the wiki page - tried to
detail SCAI concept - at this stage, my view is that SCAI is
not only for payments, but useful for payments. We might have
more formal approval by anyone that could read the presentation
to see if the majority think it's important/interesting.
... Want to know if we should prioritize this work to build a
new protocol under the payment layer that can be used for
peer-to-peer transactions, since most transactions are
peer-to-peer.
... I'd like to create a Task Force to review what I've done so
far - state if it's useful - go forward, or wait.
... Just a review task force.
<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to note recent market development
dezell: Mobile vendors are
interested in peer-to-peer payments - changes in this area and
ecommerce. I think this is important, but not aware enough to
offer more.
... On your milestones - for month of December, discuss -
January, 2nd task, and so on - anyone else that would join you
on the Task Force.
CyrilV: So far, this is just a
proposal - currently trying to get some demonstration inside
BPCE with other folks - so far, if there are no more task force
members, I have my answer.
... I may continue on my own, so far, people involved - there
is some value here - will try to go as deep as I can - even if
I can't do a deep technical dive.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention that he wants to review, but is very pressed for time, and there seems to be overlap w/ Verifiable Claims / Web Payments CG proposals.
<collier-matthew> manu: When CyrilV first did presentation at TPAC, I saw a number of parallels with SCAI and credentials working group.
<collier-matthew> ... I haven't had time to review the proposal again and won't have time in the next 2 weeks.
<collier-matthew> ... there is quite a bit of overlap.. PKI, signing of data, the desire for P2P flows...
<AdrianHB> +1 to Manu. SCAI should be considered by the Verifiable Claims TF and visa versa
<collier-matthew> there are other proposals with similar features.
<collier-matthew> I don't know exactly what the overlap is.
CyrilV: I think that the view of
SCAI is to separate during the transaction - multiple
interactions between two people, secure transaction - if you
are looking at credentials, consent to pay, then SCAI is a way
of securing that.
... There is definitely overlap - set function of this process
- but could be any type of credential - payment is a form of
credential.
... So, SCAI is under all that (more low level) - in any
process, we could find a way to secure that - real idea of SCAI
is to provide to those people a process that's the same,
treated by any actors as the same.
... As a financial process, as a trusted identity process,
could understand that everyone is booked and difficult to
review it.
dezell: As Manu suggested, there
seems to be overlap. We need to make sure we're aligned w/ the
Web Payments Working Group - don't have breaking changes,
suggest that we take a longer view of what needs to be done
here - come to as Task Force meeting for Verifiable Claims,
find some places of commonality, so when we move forward, we'll
have a consistent basis to do this.
... Not discouraging the basis of the task force, but finding
commonalities is the most interesting thing to do.
CyrilV: I feel verifiable claims
are important, but it could be difficult for me to put SCAI to
put that on Verifiable Claims level - no background there
(personally), so easier to put it into payments space from
where I come from.
... Maybe I'll try in verifiable claims - seems to be far from
interest of my bank.
dezell: Maybe we need a community group? We need to identify the problems SCAI is solving/
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to clarify that the concepts could be used in payments too, didn't mean it could only have to do w/ verifiable claims.
<collier-matthew> manu: I did not mean to imply that the only place SCAI could fit in is in verifiable claims group.
<collier-matthew> I thing the WPWG will be informed by verifiable claims as well as possibly the SCAI proposal.
<collier-matthew> ... tying to find where verifiable claims and SCAI will effect payments is important.
<collier-matthew> ... We want to make sure that the web payments work does not exclude the concepts from SCAI.
CyrilV: To try and understand what you're saying - you're suggesting that I review Web Payments WG work, review how SCAI could be used, then bring more data for the group to see if there is something core in SCAI that could be integrated.
<collier-matthew> manu: reviewing what the WPWG is doing and pointing out how SCAI applies to that work.
<dezell> +1 to manu's alternative of aligning with WPWG first.
<collier-matthew> ... that might be the best way to get people hooked into the SCAI work.
CyrilV: As I work on credit transfer flows, I'll try to add to credit transfer flows and explain how we could use SCAI to those flows. Ok, think that's a workable way forward.
dezell: CyrilV - way forward is to look for commonalities - we'll look at it more succinctly - contact me if you run into trouble w/ that.
CyrilV: Could you repeat.
dezell: Call me! :)
manu: I think we need to discuss these proposals at this depth.
Ian: I think this is an important
process we're going through - I sympathize on the time bits -
we're putting into place potential for work for next few
months. We should spend some time on proposals - proponent
should have time. Continue to work on the proposals and revise,
get to next one on next call.
... It could be faster, but we need to make sure people feel
like they've been heard.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss time spent on proposals.
<collier-matthew> manu: +1 what Ian has said about taking the time to hear propsals.
<AdrianHB> I suggest we have some indication of review status for each proposal on this page: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015
<collier-matthew> ... discussing until we understand what the next step is is important. That's what this group should be doing.
<collier-matthew> It's often necessary to spend more than 15 minutes on a proposal.
dezell: Trying to figure out how to make this go faster, I'm fine w/ it - 2 minutes before end of call. We need a call next Monday to review other proposals.
dezell: Let's continue until we're done - call next week.
<Ian> 7 December 2015
dezell: Any other business?
Silence.
dezell: Thank you folks for all the work, looking to talk w/ all of you next week if not before
manu: Don't forget the Verifiable Claims call tomorrow at 11am ET!
s/ number for that? //
s/I cannot click on them either\.//
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/I cant get in// Succeeded: s/Hi all.// Succeeded: s/Just like anyone else// Succeeded: s/thanks, trying now// Succeeded: s/hi, when i join the meeting, there shows The meeting has been canceled, what is webex link?// WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ webex link: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=md925df38d320b01c9a671b7bc43351fc// Succeeded: s/* matthew, thanks// Succeeded: s/2014/2015/ Succeeded: s/:Manu/manu/ Succeeded: s/webex says the meeting has been cancelled?// Succeeded: s/Hi all// Succeeded: s/but not on webex?// Succeeded: s/We are trying to figure out why our webex meeting was "canceled" which should not have happened// Succeeded: s/which dial in should we use?// Succeeded: s/* please, looking for room number in the direct call// Succeeded: s/Use this:// Succeeded: s/Ahh good, I'd thought it was just my network here, but most things seem fine on my end otherwise.// Succeeded: s/I cant click on WebEx links Ian// Succeeded: s/Can you private message me the details// FAILED: s/Is there a meeting number for that? I cannot click on them either.// Succeeded: s/Access code: 644 435 710// Succeeded: s/Financial Service firewalls// Succeeded: s/I got an incorrect password with the previous one// Succeeded: s/* I got disconnected...// Succeeded: s|Is there a meeting|| Succeeded: s|Please stand by|| Succeeded: s/ we are working on webex// Succeeded: s/Is there a meeting number for that// Succeeded: s/I cannot click on them either.// FAILED: s/I cannot click on them either\.// Found ScribeNick: manu Found ScribeNick: manu Found ScribeNick: manu Inferring Scribes: manu WARNING: Dash separator lines found. If you intended them to mark the start of a new topic, you need the -dashTopics option. For example: <Philippe> --- <Philippe> Review of Action Items Present: burdges kris Cyril_Vignet padler dezell amyz evert Manu MattC Erik ShaneM jheuer AdrianHB Jiagtao DJackson Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Nov/0074.html Got date from IRC log name: 30 Nov 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/30-wpay-minutes.html People with action items: dezell WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]