16:44:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpwg
16:44:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-wpwg-irc
16:44:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:44:54 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wpwg
16:44:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
16:44:56 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:44:57 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference
16:44:57 <trackbot> Date: 03 December 2015
16:46:39 <zkoch> zkoch has joined #wpwg
16:48:02 <AdrianHB> AdrianHB has joined #wpwg
16:51:55 <slightlyoff> slightlyoff has joined #wpwg
16:58:09 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #wpwg
16:58:21 <LeoPoli> LeoPoli has joined #wpwg
17:02:09 <nicktr> nicktr has joined #wpwg
17:02:15 <Laurent> Laurent has joined #Wpwg
17:02:56 <sailesh> sailesh has joined #wpwg
17:03:29 <AdrianHB> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5b3574cfbd517695ada1d26368d2adc8
17:03:29 <AdrianHB> Meeting number: 647 126 801
17:03:29 <AdrianHB> Meeting password: WVMuc825
17:03:33 <Rouslan> Present+ Rouslan
17:03:45 <nicktr> Present+ nicktr
17:03:47 <dezell> Present+ dezell
17:04:00 <Ian> rrsagent, make minutes
17:04:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
17:04:12 <Ian> rrsagent, set logs team
17:04:15 <ShaneM> Present+ ShaneM
17:04:20 <zkoch> Present+ zkoch
17:04:24 <collier-matthew> Present+ MattC
17:04:42 <Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-payments-wg/2015Nov/0001.html
17:04:43 <dlongley> Present+ dlongley
17:04:47 <Ian> present+
17:04:55 <AdrianHB> Present+ AdrianHB
17:06:04 <dlehn> Present+ dlehn
17:06:26 <adrianba> Present+ adrianba
17:07:06 <nicktr> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-3rd-December-2015-at-1700-UTC
17:07:11 <kris> kris has joined #wpwg
17:08:03 <Ian> scribenick: Ian
17:08:19 <Ian> Topic: Architecture
17:08:24 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/A-Payments-Initiation-Architecture-for-the-Web
17:08:31 <manu> Present+ Manu
17:08:44 <kris> Present+ Kris
17:08:53 <Ian> AdrianHB: I propose for next call that we adopt the terminology therein
17:08:59 <manu> q+ to note straw poll before adopting terminology.
17:09:04 <Ian> ack m
17:09:04 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note straw poll before adopting terminology.
17:09:20 <Ian> Manu: I suggest in general we conduct a straw poll with a specific proposal
17:09:29 <Ian> so that people know what they are agreeing to, and we record that.
17:10:00 <Ian> ...let's sync with the Payments IG
17:10:30 <Ian> AdrianHB: Nick and DavidE took an action to sync on the terminology
17:10:40 <Ian> nicktr: Pending
17:11:15 <MattS> MattS has joined #wpwg
17:11:28 <manu> and be specific w/ what we're adopting! :)
17:11:36 <MattS> present+ SaxonM
17:11:38 <Ian> AdrianHB: I am hearing (1) Sync with the IG (2) conduct a straw poll to get sense of support. (3) be specific about the proposal
17:11:49 <Ian> q+
17:13:31 <manu> Ian: A couple of thoughts - sync'ing with the IG is useful, even more useful is to use the terms in practice. When we discussed them during the last meeting, there was support for adding examples wrt. what we mean.
17:13:37 <nicktr> ack Ian
17:13:48 <AdrianHB> q+ to mention the way issues are being discussed today
17:14:06 <zkoch> +1 to incorporating (we’ve started this already)
17:14:07 <manu> Ian: We adopt them because they meet a shared understanding, we should use them - if editors of various documents can try to incorporate them into their work, see if they can, if they can, we might be able to use them.
17:14:23 <manu> q+ to mention to do that, he has to edit IG document, maybe?
17:14:55 <manu> +1 happy to charge ahead
17:14:56 <AdrianHB> ack AdrianHB
17:14:56 <Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to mention the way issues are being discussed today
17:14:58 <Laurent> Laurent has joined #Wpwg
17:15:06 <Ian> IJ: I Propose we try to use them (with examples) and see whether we have a better understanding of the documents as a result
17:15:14 <Ian> ..therefore don't need to be formal yet...let's ask the Editors to try it out and see
17:15:17 <adrianba> +1 to Ian's suggestion - I've been trying to use them and will have some feedback soon
17:15:29 <adrianba> however, it is hard to consume without examples
17:15:45 <Ian> AdrianHB: It's hard to decide unless we try to use it..so +1 to Ij's proposal
17:15:57 <dlongley> +1 to examples first, then using those, can try to update specs
17:16:00 <Ian> ..I'm fully available (as person who edited the proposal) to assist any editors in using the terms
17:16:25 <Ian> Summary:
17:16:28 <Ian>  * Add examples
17:16:30 <Ian>  * Try to use them
17:16:59 <Laurent_> Laurent_ has joined #Wpwg
17:17:00 <AdrianHB> +1 to use the glossary
17:17:05 <Ian> Manu: Can we add these terms to the IG glossary as experimental and use that mechanism to pull them in?
17:17:07 <ShaneM> +1 to add it to the glossary and mark as experimental
17:17:11 <Ian> IJ: +1
17:17:12 <dezell> +1 to Manu's suggestion
17:17:15 <dlongley> +1
17:17:33 <Ian> IJ: I see support from the IG co-Chair for incorporating terms in IG glossary as experimental
17:18:36 <nicktr> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Work-Plan-for-March-2016-deliverables
17:18:38 <Ian> ACTION: AdrianHB to add examples to the architecture page for each term
17:18:38 <trackbot> Error finding 'AdrianHB'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/track/users>.
17:18:45 <Ian> Topic: Getting to March 2016 FPWD
17:18:49 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Work-Plan-for-March-2016-deliverables
17:19:01 <nicktr> q?
17:19:04 <manu> q-
17:19:19 <manu> q+ to mention that we may have 3 specs.
17:19:43 <manu> q+ to become generally confused around how we are going to do merging of specs.
17:19:57 <Ian> [AdrianHB reviews the proposal, which involves creating a unified (set of) spec(s) ; capturing issues and flows)
17:20:35 <manu> q+ to note that we have specs to refer to?
17:20:43 <Ian> [Specific text proposals encouraged]
17:20:50 <Ian> q?
17:21:06 <Laurent__> Laurent__ has joined #wpwg
17:21:19 <Ian> AdrianHB: To get specs to common spec:
17:21:23 <Ian> a) Use common terms
17:21:38 <Ian> b) Define evaluation criteria for the two APIs ...
17:21:41 <Ian> ...how they handle flows
17:21:50 <Ian> ...how they handle specific issues
17:22:10 <Ian> [IJ adds a third: does it satisfy all or part of its charter?]
17:22:18 <manu> ack manu
17:22:18 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention that we may have 3 specs. and to become generally confused around how we are going to do merging of specs. and to note that we have specs to refer to?
17:22:18 <Ian> ack m
17:22:46 <Ian> Manu: CG has three specs in mind.
17:22:53 <AdrianHB> q?
17:22:59 <Ian> ...we need to discuss whether and how to break down the work into N specs
17:23:02 <AdrianHB> q+ to discuss 3 specs
17:23:11 <Ian> Manu: We do have specs to point to
17:23:35 <MattS> q+
17:23:46 <Ian> Manu: Seems like only one spec needs merging right now
17:23:54 <Ian> ...they differ in nuanced ways
17:24:04 <Ian> ...question is how to resolve those differences
17:24:31 <Ian> ..one approach is to have editors review each others' specs
17:25:21 <nicktr> ack adrianba
17:25:27 <nicktr> ack AdrianHB
17:25:27 <Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to discuss 3 specs
17:25:53 <Ian> AdrianHB: The HTTP API 1.0 is not in our charter
17:26:05 <Ian> ...I think we need to consider what we are chartered to do.
17:26:11 <manu> q+ to mention that I thought we had the flexibility to split up specs as we saw fit?
17:26:19 <Ian> ...while I think we should produce an HTTP API 1.0 spec, we need to remain within charter.
17:26:44 <Ian> AdrianHB: I like the idea of the editors reviewing the others' proposals
17:26:55 <Ian> ..and having a discussion with rationale for design directions
17:27:10 <Ian> ...but one thing that is problematic right now is that the specs are being discussed in the Web Platform CG
17:27:29 <Ian> ..I think it would be valuable to have a single stream for comparative critique
17:27:30 <manu> q+ to mention that raising issues in webpayments group was an attempt to get common discussion on both specs.
17:27:44 <Ian> q?
17:27:58 <nicktr> ack MattS
17:28:49 <Ian> MattS: How do we structure discussions to determine scope within this timeline?
17:29:06 <Ian> AdrianHB: I agree that discussion is somewhat unstructured right now
17:29:24 <manu> q+ to note that it's always this chaotic in the beginning.
17:29:27 <Ian> ...I think the sooner we have a single spec the better.
17:29:50 <Ian> AdrianHB: We talked about "phases" in the IG Roadmap
17:30:04 <Laurent__> +1 to having a single spec to discuss asap
17:30:15 <Ian> ...and there are issues where we should be thinking about what's in our future (even if not specified today)
17:30:59 <Ian> MattS: We need a formal way to agree to what's in and what's out
17:31:25 <Ian> E.g., we need formal decision on which flows to address in FPWD
17:31:25 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Flows
17:31:56 <Ian> AdrianHB: Need people to contribute flows that they consider important
17:32:39 <Ian> q+
17:32:44 <nicktr> q+
17:33:12 <Ian> MattS: The use cases are functional (e.g., merchant scenarios) ... we have not yet dealt with technical choices
17:33:20 <Ian> (e.g., which tokenization approach to support)
17:33:53 <nicktr> q?
17:34:05 <Ian> AdrianHB: I feel that we are going to get to a point where we've looked at the flows and we recognize that what we are trying to define is high enough level to accommodate a number of flows, but maybe not some due to their complexities
17:34:27 <Ian> MattS: There's a key principle
17:34:39 <Ian> ...I'm not clear if we are trying to encourage the existing flows or effectively
17:34:52 <Ian> ...trying to define a new spec, and we expect PSPs and others to adopt a new spec.
17:35:27 <Ian> ...as well as schemes, issuers, wallet providers...
17:35:43 <Ian> ...the heart of the question is 'pure flows' v "impure flows"
17:35:48 <Ian> ...(read: existing)
17:36:06 <Ian> AdrianHB: I think fundamentally we are not trying to change the whole landscape, rather do something small that we think can have a large impact.
17:36:16 <Ian> ...and that's facilitate comms between PSPs of payer and payee
17:36:27 <Ian> ...the people who will make that work will be sites, browser vendors, PSPs
17:36:36 <Ian> ...there are a number of people who can make existing flows work with the standards we build
17:36:49 <Ian> ...but I think the idea is ALSO to create a flow for emerging flows
17:37:08 <nicktr> ack manu
17:37:08 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention that I thought we had the flexibility to split up specs as we saw fit? and to mention that raising issues in webpayments group was an attempt to get
17:37:08 <Ian> ...we are standardizing a generic comms channel
17:37:11 <Zakim> ... common discussion on both specs. and to note that it's always this chaotic in the beginning.
17:37:23 <nicktr> zakim, close the queue
17:37:23 <Zakim> ok, nicktr, the speaker queue is closed
17:37:52 <dlongley> notes that the charter states that an API spec needs to cover: "User agent to server-side wallet communication: Where request messages are passed to a server-side wallet service, for example via HTTP, JavaScript, or some other approach."
17:37:55 <Ian> Manu: I think we have flexibility on number of docs
17:38:12 <Ian> ...I would object to ONLY doing browser-based APIs in version
17:38:13 <dlongley> which seems to indicate a potential need for HTTP and Browser APIs
17:38:27 <Ian> ...we need to think about the HTTP case (for automated payment scenarios)
17:38:36 <dezell> q?
17:38:45 <Ian> AdrianHB: I think you've made two points:
17:38:46 <dezell> q+ to talk about UI insertion
17:39:03 <Ian> a) 2 or 3 specs? That's a decision for the group: should we have an HTTP API spec
17:39:34 <Ian> (if we do three, all together or stagger?)
17:39:38 <Laurent> Laurent has joined #Wpwg
17:39:39 <Ian> b) then there's the design of the API
17:40:25 <Ian> Manu: The comments around the google proposal look different from the ones on the payment cg spec
17:40:43 <Ian> ...I am trying to capture CG comments in the WG tracker
17:40:50 <Ian> ...to help pros/cons discussion
17:41:12 <Ian> ..I think we need to consolidate into a single issue tracker
17:41:16 <nicktr> ack Ian
17:42:26 <nicktr> ack nicktr
17:42:46 <Ian> IJ: I would not do fewer than 2 specs (per charter) but more ok and editors should just do the structuring they think is useful and provide to group as input
17:43:34 <Ian> nicktr: Regarding Matt's question about designing pure v. impure, I would strongly urge us to create something that is very easy for incumbents to support.
17:43:37 <Ian> q+
17:43:49 <dezell> Want to say that it's important not to go "nose down" into the browser API, where all kinds of UI issues will entice trouble.
17:43:57 <Ian> Topic: Flows
17:44:03 <nicktr> zakim, open the queue
17:44:03 <Zakim> ok, nicktr, the speaker queue is open
17:44:14 <Ian> Flows info in wiki
17:44:15 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Flows
17:44:37 <Ian> MattS: There are 12-13 flows there
17:44:56 <Ian> ..I've organized a 2-weekly meeting (Fridays)
17:45:05 <manu> q+ to note flow diagrams elsewhere.
17:45:06 <Ian> "11:00 UTC for 1 hour every 2 weeks Conducted via GeneSys meeting centre IRC channel #wpwg"
17:45:20 <Ian> MattS: So I want to see if others are planning to contribute
17:45:25 <Ian> q+ to ask about viewing flows
17:45:34 <nicktr> i think direct debit is also missing an assignee
17:45:41 <nicktr> q?
17:45:51 <manu> http://wicg.github.io/web-payments-browser-api/#flows-addendum
17:45:52 <nicktr> ack manu
17:45:52 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note flow diagrams elsewhere.
17:46:05 <Ian> Manu: there's a set of flows in the web payments cg browser API
17:47:11 <Ian> MattS: I'd like to work from one source of flows
17:47:11 <nicktr> q?
17:47:21 <manu> +1 for collapsing into one repository
17:47:25 <nicktr> ack Ian
17:47:25 <Zakim> Ian, you wanted to ask about viewing flows
17:47:57 <manu> q+ to mention that we have that, kinda.
17:48:04 <Ian> IJ: What is the status of making easier to view?
17:48:48 <Ian> MattS: @@
17:48:50 <nicktr> ack manu
17:48:50 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention that we have that, kinda.
17:48:59 <Ian> Manu: I'm working on another approach generating diagrams from text
17:49:04 <Ian> ...in a browser
17:49:10 <Ian> ...we could have a document that links to the flow sources
17:49:18 <AdrianHB> There is a service that will dynamically render them but they need to be renamed to .puml files
17:49:19 <AdrianHB> http://uml.mvnsearch.org/github/w3c/webpayments/blob/gh-pages/PaymentFlows/Card/MerchantHosted-CardPayment-CGProposal.pml
17:49:19 <Ian> ...and when you refresh page, you have idea of what flows look like.
17:49:24 <manu> http://wicg.github.io/web-payments-browser-api/#flows-addendum
17:49:30 <nicktr> s/@@/I think we have the docuements in the right place for now, with the people working on them able to easily access them
17:50:26 <nicktr> q?
17:50:36 <Laurent> http://plantuml.com/plantuml/ is also able to generate short url s to link to
17:50:46 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Flows
17:50:56 <manu> q+ to say we shouldn't have it in a wiki, we should have it in a spec? You can link to it.
17:51:08 <manu> q+ to mention we /can't/ have it in a wiki.
17:51:23 <ShaneM> q+ to point out that we *could* set up some automation to generate static versions on checkins if that's interesting
17:51:26 <manu> q-
17:51:38 <manu> q+ to mention it won't work in the wiki, I tried.
17:51:42 <manu> q-
17:51:56 <manu> q+ volunteers to work with Ian.
17:52:03 <manu> q-
17:52:06 <manu> q- volunteers
17:52:30 <ShaneM> q-
17:52:30 <manu> +1 for Matt, Ian, and Manu getting together to do that work.
17:52:33 <Ian> ACTION: Ian to work with Matt and Manu on creating a page that links to sources so you can click to render
17:52:33 <trackbot> 'Ian' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., ijacobs, ijmad).
17:53:09 <nicktr> topic: Issues list
17:53:45 <Ian> AdrianHB: We need to go from three issues list to 1
17:54:09 <Ian> AdrianHB: Propose:
17:54:28 <Ian> - If an issue refers to proposals, in the issue you reference the relevant section of the spec
17:54:39 <nicktr> q?
17:54:46 <zkoch> +1
17:54:47 <manu> +1
17:54:49 <dlongley> +1
17:54:55 <manu> q+ to clarify
17:55:02 <nicktr> ack manu
17:55:02 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to clarify
17:55:08 <Laurent> +1
17:55:23 <Ian> Manu: I am hearing:
17:55:34 <Ian>  * All issues go in the github tracker, with refs to specific sections
17:55:36 <Ian> AdrianHB: yes
17:55:41 <nicktr> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues
17:55:49 <ShaneM> +1 to keep the issues in the wpwg issue tracker.
17:56:01 <zkoch> If you want particular attention, github supports @ replies :)
17:56:22 <manu> +1 to keep issues in wpwg issue tracker and ref spec sections.
17:56:26 <nicktr> q?
17:57:17 <Ian> AdrianHB: for existing issues, people who have raised them should clarify whether applies to one or both proposals
17:57:49 <Ian> nicktr: I will double check the issues list against what we discussed at TPAC
17:57:55 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/TPAC-2015-issues-list
17:58:38 <Ian> IJ: Heads-up I edited lightly (e.g., to organize issues)
17:59:01 <Ian> AdrianHB: Once we have a single issues list this should become much easier (e.g., pull request to get a change, that becomes threaded comments)
17:59:19 <Ian> topic: TAG election
18:00:28 <nicktr> q+ to note that the next call is Thursday 17th December at 17:00 UTC
18:00:34 <Ian> Topic: Next call
18:00:36 <Ian> ack nicktr
18:00:36 <Zakim> nicktr, you wanted to note that the next call is Thursday 17th December at 17:00 UTC
18:00:45 <Ian>  17th December at 17:00 UTC
18:00:56 <Ian> rrsagent, make minutes
18:00:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
18:01:00 <Ian> rrsagent, set logs team
18:01:25 <Ian> rrsagent, set logs public
20:05:22 <Ian> hi shane
20:29:21 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wpwg
21:04:47 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #wpwg
23:51:37 <sam> sam has joined #wpwg