See also: IRC log
<Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Work-Plan-for-March-2016-deliverables#timeline
<zkoch> +1
<adrianba> +1
Ian: Editors, please give a thumbs up in IRC to indicate that you still expect to tell us at the 10 March meeting if we can meet the schedule
<Ian> IJ: Do editors recall 10 march to tell us whether we will met schedule
Ian: Once we know on the 10th we're good to go, the 17th we'll do a CFC for the FPWD. On 17 March we'll need the draft modulo bits in the status section, whatever. We'll have a week for people to comment on that. During that week the AC meeting takes place, people will be busy, so forth. Following that is Easter related holidays which will take more time from some people. We thought for a week after CFC chairs will chairs send formal request, IPR considera
tions, etc. When that is approved, it will take some time for management team to deal with it, next thing is to talk to web master, Doug is taking lead from staff side.
Ian: He'll work with editors on that, that would go to the Web master on the 1st, then 5th is publication, few days to correct mistakes, etc. Then we tweet, etc. We talked a little about not doing a big press outreach around that time. But it would be good for software companies to tell their dev networks this thing is available, etc. That's the publication schedule, any comments, questions?
<Ian> ======
Ian: I had taken an action with the chairs to review the minutes and start to identify things that looked like issues for further discussion that may already be logged as issues or may be new. I'm compiling a list, 45% done.
<Ian> * Include billing address in the API?
<Ian> * Expilcit signal that a payment is recurring?
<Ian> * Move from "PSP-centric tokenization" to "user-centric"
<Ian> raises issue of tokenization at registration v. tokenization
<Ian> at run-time. (Silent order post)
<Ian> * Time out after browser hands control back to merchant, if merchant
<Ian> does not get back to the browser. (Known issue)
<Ian> * Handing off payment request to payment app without final amount known.
<Ian> * Anti-tampering mechanism depends on payment method (and depends on app)
<Ian> * How would the merchant expect to inspect the status of payment?
<Ian> * Limit of matching on payment method alone:
<Ian> a) registered payment app supports a payment method but
<Ian> user doesn't have an instrument of that method.
<Ian> b) How to update registration information when user updates
<Ian> information in app (e.g., adds an instrument) or updates
<Ian> the app?
<Ian> =======
Ian: I've pasted a half page of notes into IRC about this. At a high-level the meeting had some really good conversation. I'm finding the exercise useful and I'll be putting these in a wiki page and then we can discuss them on the list, I'll send out a note.
<adrianba> New GitHub repo
<Ian> (IJ: I will review my list with the current list ... maybe the right thing is for me simply to do pull requests)
Ade: I've tried to log all the issues that were raised in the paymentrequest repo in WICG. Right now, I think every issue that is logged in the issue tracker in the new repo has a pointer in the draft document. There may be some small tweaks that we need to make, but we're ready for people to file new issues and submit PRs.
<Ian> IJ: Should I put issues in issues list?
<AdrianHB> +1 for issues in the list
<MattS> +1 to issues on the list
AdrianHB: My preference is to base it on the content.
<adrianba> btw, I haven't migrated any issues from the WG issue list
<Ian> ACTION: Ian to continue to read minutes to identify issues; compare with existing issues; log in WG issues list or spec issues list as most appropriate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> 'Ian' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., ijacobs, ijmad).
<nicktr_redux> +1 for thanks to AdrianBA
AdrianHB: Thanks Ade for doing
that. Really appreciate that. We can work on getting to FPWD
now. The stuff in the WG list isn't all appropriate for direct
logging against the specs, in many cases it's stuff where
people have logged example code and suggested changes and those
would be best logged as PRs and not just issues.
... If anyone has issues from the WG issue list that they
raised and think they should be moved to the spec list then do
that. Move your own issues over or do PRs.
<Ian> (I am fine to run my analysis by the chairs to reduce noise before I start logging things)
AdrianHB: I'm happy to go through the minutes stuff with you, Ian, but if people were involved in discussions on the group list and feel those should be moved to the spec list specifically, it should probably be in the form of a PR.
<adrianba> +1
<ShaneM> +1
<Ian> +1
<MattS> +1, but can this be made explcit in the wiki 'how we work' as there are many people absent today
AdrianHB: Ideally we'll get to a point soon where the only things in the WG issue list aren't directly related to the spec.
<Ian> ACTION: AdrianHB to update the wiki on "how we work" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Error finding 'AdrianHB'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/track/users>.
<Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki
Ian: We'll also want to update the wiki homepage, which captured the current status prior to the meeting and the current status has changed, some things will still be visible. I don't know if you want to do that as well Adrian.
<Ian> IJ: Could you update that home page as well?
AdrianHB: Sure.
Ian: Ok, great.
Ian: So I have a blog post that
I've written, a draft, where I talk about the FTF meeting, the
decision to move forward with the draft as the basis, primary
goal with streamlining checkout, etc.
... The key concepts like payment app and registration and
payment, etc. Figuring out the limits of version one and things
like flags for recurring payment, collecting billing
information, so on, giving people a flavor of the topics that
we're discussing. I listed the people there as well. Talked a
bit about the work coming up. That's the flow of the
thing.
... I wanted to give people a head's up, don't think anything
controversial is there.
... Ideally, we would send this today on the WG blog.
<shepazu> (I'll review the revised post today)
AdrianHB: We wanted to gauge the feeling of the group of starting to work on things like the flows and a deeper dive into PSD2 and what that means, the HTTP API which didn't come up at FTF, but also things like the extensibility story and so on. Documentation and so on. The blog is going to illustrate is that we've got a long story to tell. The group has done a fair amount of work which anyone coming in cold they've got a lot to consume to get a complete p
icture.
AdrianHB: Over lunch at the
conference I was at today, I explained what we're doing and I
spent almost all of the whole lunch explaining where things
would fit in, all of the various options and stuff we've been
working on.
... We should start thinking about things from implementation
challenges, how we're going to persuade merchants, PSPs, banks
to adopt what we're building. A big part of it is education
around what they'd do and how they'd do it. Not just strategic
stuff, but step by step how to do it.
... Some of those things are still undecided, because we
haven't specified in detail, for example, how Payment App
registration will work.
... If you're not heavily involved in editing, or even if you
are, how keen are you to begin exploring these other
deliverables.
+1 on the HTTP API post FPWD
<ShaneM> +1 http api
<adrianba> We have a good starting point from the explainers that Zach wrote
<Ian> +1 to helping work on project to create developer documentation (which in my mind will be an open repository to get help from actual developers)
<shepazu> +1 to helping Ian help on developer docs :)
AdrianHB: I'm certainly keen to help on that developer stuff. I assume that's not doing to be immediately because I spoke w/Zach but he'll be heavily editing in the near term, more involved later on down the line.
<Ian> (IJ will be chatting with MattS and the Flows [great band name] on a grand vision that involves flows and developer documentation)
zkoch: Two comments, your
question about explaining to people about what we're working
on, the right solution is to take another go at the explainer
doc. It's the high level of what we're trying to
accomplish.
... It might be worth revisiting that and keep that continually
updated.
... My other bit is ... I wanted to say, I'd love some more
thoughts and the info on the payment method identifiers and I'd
like to get more input on that.
<Ian> +1 to making progress on payment method IDs and also registration
AdrianHB: I think with the method
identifier thing, what do you propose is the best way to kick
that off ... discuss on the call or pick it up on the issue
list that we start a thread and begin discussing?
... What do you think we need to clarify before we get to
FPWD?
<adrianba> Would like people to come up with proposals that we can discuss and compare
<ShaneM> I don't think it is necessary for FPWD
zkoch: I don't think we need an
issue, just a proposal.
... I don't think discussion on the issue tracker will be
productive. I think if we don't have a clear story on method
identifiers then others might try to work on it and we may not
be happy with it.
<zkoch> Sorry to dlongley for talking at zach speed
<Ian> +1 to concrete proposals
AdrianHB: So this is effectively a call for proposals.
<zkoch> :(
AdrianHB: I think we have one proposal already put forward by the WPCG for the HTTP API. My suggestion is for the editors of that document to have a fresh look at it and see how it relates to what's in the browser API today and then notify people when it's a good idea to have people send PRS against it, etc.
<Ian> dlongley: That sounds fine to me.
<ShaneM> I am cool starting with CG document as a basis too.
<Ian> ...we'll take a look at what's there, see how it aligns with browser API
<Ian> adrianHB: my personal view on the "outstanding stuff" is .. I want to see what we can put together around extensibility
AdrianHB: My personal view is I'm
interested in the extensibility story as well.
... If we have a well-crafted payment request message
object.
+1 for well-crafted, extensible payment request message
very important in my view
AdrianHB: So let's start self-organizing around that and putting that document together.
there is already a messages spec as well.
from the WPCG.
<Ian> nicktr_redux: We have a video that relates to the HTTP API discussion
<Ian> ...did not have a chance to show at the FTF meeting
<Ian> ...happy to take suggestions on how to share
nick: It's not that I'm not prepared to post it publicly, it just relies on everyone on the call to be able to watch a video, etc. If I stick it on vimeo or whatever, are people ok with going to a commercial site like that.
AdrianHB: Lastly, we wanted to find out if there's a desire to have a FTF meeting specifically around the API doc, it's not a closed meeting for the editors, but it's about having a meeting that's very focused for the browser API.
AdrianHB: That may just be something for people to mull over and come back with a proposal.
<Ian> TPAC 2016 is 19-23 Sep in Lisbon
Ian: First, to note that TPAC
2016 is 19-23 Sept.
... One question we can start to ask ourselves is if we want to
meet Mon/Tue or Thu/Fri.
... Chairs and team contacts can maybe start a poll to get an
initial sense because it helps the meeting planners to figure
out room size and all that.
... If we meet in Sept, the question is, do we want to meet in
June and to discuss what?
<nicktr_redux> ACTION: nicktr to create poll for F2F days at TPAC 2016 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Create poll for f2f days at tpac 2016 [on Nick Telford-Reed - due 2016-03-10].
Ian: I can't tell whether there will be a lot of work on the API that goes to FPWD in April and that will take away time and focus on other deliverables, whether that's payment request next steps, flows and documentation, etc. That doesn't make sense to me because we won't have time to look at concrete things or if we want to have time to develop and discuss those things for June so that by Sept we are preparing to wrap up the APIs and head to CR in the fa
ll.
Ian: Sept would be a great time to finalize big issues, give editors time to make changes so there's a resolution in Oct to go to CR.
<nicktr_redux> strong +1 for a face to face in june but recognises cost of travel
Ian: That would involve beginning
planning for testing and we could check in in June and a more
serious look in Sept.
... I'm inventing this flow on the fly here.
AdrianHB: We did have a deadline
for HTTP API FPWD in June. In much the same way we may need to
push that publication to July and have a F2F in June.
... We do have another deliverable we need to make by mid year,
unless it's a very limited subset of the group working on it,
we should try to set up a F2F group meeting to precede that
deadline.
<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to mention we have a June deadline for HTTP API
<Ian> adrianHB: Anyone interested in hosting a FTF?
<ShaneM> I note that the first week of June includes Memorial Day in the US.
<Ian> (e.g., June)
AdrianHB: I don't think we'll come to any concrete decisions now, perhaps something for Ian, Nick, Doug, and I to work on and come back with proposals. If anyone wants to host F2F please make that known to the chairs.
<nicktr_redux> I am prepared to host the meeting in the UK
AdrianHB: Who wants to host us? I'd love to host inside Africa but long trip and June not a good time of year.
Ian: UK is interesting. Chicago would be lovely, Pat Adler would be happy. If not Chicago, then east coast or west coast of Europe seem like sensible proposals.
<Ian> IJ: Nick can you look at dates in June?
<ShaneM> Chicago would be nice actually!
<Ian> ACTION: nicktr to look at dates when Worldpay could host a meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Look at dates when worldpay could host a meeting [on Nick Telford-Reed - due 2016-03-10].
<Ian> 10 March 2016
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) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: dlongley Inferring Scribes: dlongley Present: Cyril Vignet Ian wseltzer Steven_Miller(phone) nicktr AdrianHB kriske Rouslan MattS PeterDaley zkoch Magda shepazu ShaneM VincentK adamR Frederic padler WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-for-3rd-March-telco WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 03 Mar 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wpwg-minutes.html People with action items: adrianhb ian nicktr WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]