15:51:57 RRSAgent has joined #wpwg 15:51:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/31-wpwg-irc 15:51:59 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:51:59 Zakim has joined #wpwg 15:52:01 Zakim, this will be 15:52:01 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:52:02 Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference 15:52:02 Date: 31 March 2016 15:52:22 agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160331 15:52:36 zakim, this will be Web Payments Working Group Teleconference 15:52:37 ok, Ian 15:52:42 chair: NickTR 15:52:45 scribe: Ian 16:00:11 VincentK has joined #wpwg 16:00:35 dlehn has joined #wpwg 16:00:38 present+ VincentK 16:00:44 present+ nicktr 16:01:09 MattS has joined #wpwg 16:01:25 present+ ShaneM 16:01:26 present+ MattS 16:02:06 zkoch has joined #wpwg 16:02:21 rouslan has joined #wpwg 16:02:39 present+ zkoch 16:02:51 present +dlongley 16:02:54 present+ rouslan 16:03:08 present+ manu 16:03:14 present+ dlongley 16:04:11 kriske has joined #wpwg 16:04:47 present+ Ian 16:04:54 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160331 16:04:55 NickTR: Thanks all for joining - lots to talk about - agenda is in IRC. 16:04:58 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160331 16:05:09 Topic: Staff Resources 16:05:13 zakim, who's here? 16:05:13 Present: VincentK, nicktr, ShaneM, MattS, zkoch, rouslan, manu, dlongley, Ian 16:05:14 nicktr: Ian, I think you wanted to start by giving a brief update on staff resources. 16:05:16 On IRC I see rouslan, zkoch, MattS, dlehn, VincentK, Zakim, RRSAgent, nicktr, shepazu, collier-matthew, hober, ShaneM, dlongley, manu, AdrianHB, davidillsley, schuki, slightlyoff, 16:05:16 ... mkwst, dwim_, adrianba, wseltzer, trackbot, Ian 16:05:31 Mike5 has joined #wpwg 16:05:32 Ian: I'm pleased to know that Mike Smith will be dedicating some of his W3C time to this WG. 16:05:36 Present+ AdrianHB 16:05:57 Ian: I think I'll be the primary team contact, Mike will be second, Doug will remain in group in some capacity. 16:06:05 q? 16:06:14 IJ: Welcome Mike Smith! 16:06:17 Ian: Mike will provide good input from browser knowledge, welcome Mike! 16:06:29 Mike5: I live in Tokyo. 16:06:48 q+ 16:06:57 ack she 16:07:02 Mike: Glad to be here, I'm in Tokyo - timezone is a bit different, have other late night calls, this won't be much of a hardship when there is some agenda item that the Chairs would like me on the call for. Glad to be here, looking forward to getting some great stuff done w/ all of you. 16:07:10 shepazu: I'm splitting off my time and will focus on blockchain 16:07:22 ...which is not directly related to this WG, but we are looking at organizing a blockchain and the Web Workshop 16:07:27 ...so contact me if you are interested! 16:07:27 nick is interested 16:07:29 kriske has joined #wpwg 16:07:29 Doug: I'm going to be concentrating on Blockchain, not directly related to stuff in this group, but planning Blockchain workshop in next 3 months - if anyone is interested, feel free to contact me. 16:07:34 jnormore has joined #wpwg 16:07:41 nicktr: Great, let's move on to next item on agenda. 16:07:47 Topic: Call for Consensus Plan 16:07:52 scribe: Ian 16:08:04 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Mar/0170.html Call for Consensus Plan 16:08:16 nicktr: Took longer to get to the CFC than we thought 16:08:25 ..thanks to editors and participants 16:08:40 ...we will have imminently an improved set of specs for the CFCF 16:08:51 ...as soon as I have the URLs of the specs, I'll issue the CFC 16:08:59 (draft text is here: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Call-for-Consensus-FPWD) 16:09:05 ...will trigger a 7-day period for comments 16:09:46 q? 16:10:15 Roy has joined #wpwg 16:10:23 Ian: one question - this morning Manu issued a PR to move content from one document to another, that one is a source of concern to me and affects which documents are a part of the CfC - we may need a few minutes here. 16:10:37 For reference: https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/110 16:10:37 Manu: that PR was not meant to block the CFC...apologies 16:10:54 ..the last one was spoke about the docs I suggested we move some of the text from the arch doc into the payment request API doc 16:10:58 ...and just put that one out. 16:11:07 ...that's what that PR is trying to do 16:11:39 q+ to clarify 16:11:59 AdrianHB: This is a question for Manu - are you saying that you would be happy for the FPWD to go ahead without this PR? 16:12:08 ...or this is something that you are going to consider before FPWD? 16:12:34 Manu: From our company's perspective: if the PR is taken account, we would be +1 to publishing both arch and API, otherwise -1 16:12:44 q+ 16:12:46 ack Adr 16:12:46 AdrianHB, you wanted to clarify 16:13:52 q? 16:15:22 wpwg has joined #wpwg 16:15:25 q+ 16:15:37 alyver has joined #wpwg 16:15:42 ack Ian 16:16:20 q+ to mention that I don't think we're going to be able to resolve this on the call. 16:16:26 IJ: Should we call it "overview" instead of "architecture"? Would that get more consensus? 16:16:30 ack manu 16:16:30 manu, you wanted to mention that I don't think we're going to be able to resolve this on the call. 16:16:42 Manu: We won't be able to resolve this on the call. I think the discussion is more involved than just changing a word or two 16:16:53 ...it has to do with people reading the document and not understanding the nuance 16:17:10 q? 16:17:32 +1 for rename to Overview, make very clear that this is not a vision document for Web Payments 16:17:43 IJ: I agree the state section should state clearly "this is not all we are doing" 16:17:57 ...but I don't want to muddy the API document by including more material in it that could be better outside in a separate spec 16:18:36 AdrianHB: There is no clarity today about how payment apps will be implemented 16:18:55 +1 - there is handwaving about payment apps in the spec. We need detail about the flow of messages and control. 16:18:56 ...e.g., the complete() method talks about sending data 16:19:15 q+ to note that we SHOULD have an architecture specification, and the current "architecture" specification is not that. 16:19:18 ....but I'm concerned that there is not shared understanding today about apps will work 16:19:21 ack AdrianHB 16:19:36 q+ to talk about payment apps 16:19:41 ack manu 16:19:41 manu, you wanted to note that we SHOULD have an architecture specification, and the current "architecture" specification is not that. 16:19:42 AdrianHB: For me, that's why there is a need for more architectural language in the normative specification that is specific about how the pieces tie together 16:19:46 +1 to AdrianHB -- another point is that Payment Apps should be discussed in an architecture doc, and merely referenced by any particular API like the Browser API or the HTTP API. 16:19:54 Manu: My goal was not to derail conversation today. Could we continue this discussion in the CFC? 16:20:05 ...the interplay between these docs is nuanced and complex 16:20:10 ...I do not think we will make headway today 16:20:14 ...let's move to the CFC discussion 16:20:16 where an architecture doc encompasses many APIs and how they interrelate and so forth (I also made this same point in the related issue on github) 16:20:18 q? 16:20:26 ack rouslan 16:20:26 rouslan, you wanted to talk about payment apps 16:20:40 rouslan: I didn't want to give the impression that browser vendors are not opening up their cards. From my perspective there will be several types of payment apps. 16:20:49 +1 for moving on but I am concerned that the CfC will have formal objections based on what we're discussing here 16:20:50 ...one type is "info stored in browser" 16:20:57 ...another type of app is "what is built into the OS" 16:21:05 jnormore has joined #wpwg 16:21:06 ....that might not be uninstallable 16:21:15 ...if we are able to use it we will 16:21:35 ..finally, there will be third party apps, which will be different on different platforms (e.g., web sites on desktop, native on mobile, etc.) 16:21:53 ...I simply have not figured out how this will work but it's ongoing 16:22:02 ...I have expressed some thoughts on how the Android-specific stuff might work 16:22:07 q? 16:22:08 ...so those are all my cards. :) 16:22:28 I appreciate Rouslan's comments on being as open as possible. 16:22:35 Thanks Rouslan but that's not standardizable because your proposal won't work on all mobile OS :( 16:22:42 q+ 16:22:47 (I think AdrianHB meant that people have ideas they have not articulated, not that anyone was being secretive) 16:23:28 q? 16:24:47 ack me 16:25:00 IJ: understand then that we will go to CFC and then people can weigh in on the PR request 16:25:06 I'll also highlight that a number of people are very concerned about unlevel playing field wrt. browser-based architecture. 16:25:26 NickTR: So I will start CFC today and people can weigh in during the CFC 16:25:33 not saying anyone is trying to create unlevel playing field, but when we don't know how we're going to create a level playing field, it makes people jittery. 16:25:56 jnormore has joined #wpwg 16:26:42 topic: Next priorities 16:27:17 NickTR: It's important as a WG that we process issues and that there is clarity on how we are doing that 16:27:23 ...I expect a lot of new issues as a result of FPWD 16:27:35 ...Matt Saxon has proposed some categories and priorities: 16:27:36 https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/105 16:28:26 MattS: This is a proposal, I welcome suggestions and changes 16:28:52 ...there are three sets of categorizations in the payment request api repo 16:29:02 1) Which doc the issue pertains two 16:29:10 rrsagent, make minutes 16:29:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/31-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 16:29:15 2) Type categories 16:29:26 3) Prioritization 16:30:04 +1 for working on extensibility/versioning. 16:30:30 q+ to ask if we could break functionality down into categories... maybe call it Features? 16:30:38 all good MattS ! 16:31:10 MattS: So there are 16 high-priority issues where I suggest we get started 16:31:37 +1 thanks MattS 16:31:38 Nicktr: Thanks for doing this; the chairs and wg appreciates this 16:31:41 +1 thanks MattS 16:31:42 Yes, thank you Matt for working on this! 16:32:27 Manu: "Native support" and "Functionality" are broad..... 16:32:35 ...they don't give me a sense of what goes in those buckets. 16:32:39 ...maybe there's a "New Features" bucket 16:32:59 ...also, I don't know whether "Native Support" is helpful. (I'm not saying "Not helpful" just not sure if helpful) 16:33:23 for those playing along at home: https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/milestones/Priority:%20High 16:34:21 ShaneM: Yes, we're using waffle.io - https://waffle.io/w3c/webpayments 16:34:33 +1 that the chairs will run with this 16:34:34 or rather, we're supposed to be using it (I rarely find myself on that site because I don't think of it) 16:34:40 https://waffle.io/w3c/browser-payment-api 16:34:46 NickTR: I think management of this responsibility of co-Chairs 16:34:47 +1 to the Chairs organizing priorities w/ input from the group. 16:34:48 based on the group's input 16:35:15 NickTR: I expect to use this to organize weekly agendas 16:35:16 q? 16:35:23 ack manu 16:35:23 manu, you wanted to ask if we could break functionality down into categories... maybe call it Features? 16:35:24 ack manu 16:35:25 ack manu 16:36:23 Ian: In the HTML working group, there was a somewhat elaborate process for getting through issues. 16:36:41 Ian: AdrianB and I had a brief chat where we could take the best of that process and find something well suited for this group. 16:38:15 Dashboard? 16:38:37 NickTR: Is the dashboard useful? 16:38:40 I don't use it :( 16:38:42 I had forgotten all about waffle.io 16:39:28 Ian: The dashboard could be a helpful way for chairs to get a good idea of high-priority issues, relevant actions, etc. 16:39:41 Ian: The question is whether the chairs are finding this useful for agenda building? 16:39:48 Ian: That's the primary utility. 16:39:57 Ian: The secondary utility is for the rest of the WG members. 16:40:14 IJ: Is this useful for chairs? 16:40:20 AdrianHB: Two comments 16:40:26 1) waffle.io is great; Kanban board 16:40:42 ..if we want to follow a process that can be easily modeled with that tool, then the dashboard will be useful to us 16:40:50 ...what that suggests is that we need to use labels to indicate issue state 16:40:53 ..that's one approach 16:41:03 2) An alternative dashboard was built in another w3c wg 16:41:12 ...that's been taking on by the tooling team 16:41:21 ....using github APIs and try to render them onto a page 16:41:31 ...Doug and I were going to look at that and see if there were better templates we could use 16:41:43 ...that was probably more appropriate when we were looking at proposals/resolutions 16:41:53 ...so if we prefer that process, we can do more there. 16:42:10 q+ 16:42:20 ...I also spoke with some people at Ripple (design team) who could help with better UI on tool 16:42:27 ...they need to know our requirements (and assuming the project is not huge) 16:42:41 q 16:42:43 ack she 16:42:43 q? 16:42:48 shepazu 16:43:14 q? 16:43:41 shepazu: I agree with AdrianHB...if the tool is useful then I am happy to spend time on it (but I have other priorities currently) 16:43:47 q+ to mention a simpler way of how some of the other WGs handled this. 16:44:14 shepazu: W3C systems team is taking on a part of this question...so longer we wait easier it will be to do something 16:44:17 q+ to mention the w3c tool is read only 16:44:32 nicktr: I suggest that AdrianHB and I will take a look at refactoring the waffle.io dashboard for the spec repo 16:44:41 ...and we'll bring that back to the WG.... 16:44:57 ...I would encourage people in WG to let us know their desires re: tooling 16:45:01 q? 16:45:02 ack manu 16:45:02 manu, you wanted to mention a simpler way of how some of the other WGs handled this. 16:45:05 AdrianHB, yes, and the write-capable aspect is being generally picked up by W3C systems team 16:45:11 manu: Simple lists also powerful. 16:45:13 alyver has joined #wpwg 16:45:38 ack AdrianHB 16:45:39 AdrianHB, you wanted to mention the w3c tool is read only 16:45:49 adrianHB: The W3C tool is currently READ-ONLY 16:45:49 +1 to manu 16:46:41 q+ to comment 16:46:45 Topic: Registration spec 16:46:48 (It's not a spec) 16:46:55 correction: there is a registration explainer proposal 16:47:00 q+ to ask about HTTP API and when work on that can start 16:47:06 Starting point for discussion -> https://github.com/WICG/paymentrequest/blob/gh-pages/docs/registration.md 16:47:07 q+ 16:47:34 ack zk 16:47:34 zkoch, you wanted to comment 16:47:55 has been pulled into group repo: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/blob/gh-pages/proposals/registration.md 16:48:05 zkoch: The explainer mostly raises issues...lots of open questions 16:48:17 ...this is my plea to the rest of the group that we welcome more thought son this topic. 16:48:31 q? 16:48:37 ...please make thoughts known, even if not fully known 16:48:46 nicktr: I echo Zach's plea 16:48:57 ack manu 16:48:57 manu, you wanted to ask about HTTP API and when work on that can start 16:49:20 Manu: We also said that the HTTP API is a next priority 16:49:24 ...when should that happen? 16:49:32 (IJ did not list since that's coming in June to my recollection) 16:49:33 AndChat|139376 has joined #wpwg 16:49:34 Submit as PR to WG repo? 16:49:44 q+ 16:50:01 Nick: Matt has proposed next priorities security and extensibility; we said "HTTP API next" 16:50:08 ...are there people prepared to work on the HTTP API today? 16:50:20 q+ would work on HTTP API today and do so ahead of prioritizing extensibility/app work. in parallel 16:50:25 q+ would work on HTTP API today and do so ahead of prioritizing extensibility/app work in parallel 16:50:25 ...and to do so ahead of prioritizing extensibility? 16:50:25 I think MattS priorities are specific to the browser api 16:50:26 q? 16:50:26 q? 16:50:30 q+ 16:50:31 ack MattS 16:50:33 q- 16:50:39 q+ would work on HTTP API today and do so ahead of prioritizing extensibility work in parallel 16:50:50 q+ to would work on HTTP API today and do so ahead of prioritizing extensibility work in parallel 16:51:12 wpwg has joined #wpwg 16:51:17 Note, registration is a subset of the Extensibility/Versioning category, perhaps we should split this out 16:51:41 q+ to note that the http api may have strong effects on the browser API 16:51:47 ack me 16:51:49 ack Ian 16:51:52 ack manu 16:51:52 manu, you wanted to would work on HTTP API today and do so ahead of prioritizing extensibility work in parallel and to note that the http api may have strong effects on the browser 16:51:55 ... API 16:51:55 Note, there were few issues that pertained to HTTP API, though I don't necessarily think that means it is low priority as the issues pertain to existing specs 16:52:06 IJ: I think we said previously that we wanted to get consensus on JS API first, and then align HTTP API with it 16:52:10 ...I think registration is higher priority 16:52:20 Manu: I think HTTP API may affect browser discussion 16:52:36 ...the longer we push off HTTP API, the more we will have to revisit the browser API later 16:52:42 HTTP API will also inform messaging (potentially) and the way handshaking and interchange need to be supported. 16:52:56 +1 to work in parallel as they do have things in common like Payment Apps. 16:53:13 NickTR: Adrian suggests a pull request to include HTTP API in the WG repo 16:53:23 ...that seems like an excellent way forward. 16:53:30 q? 16:53:31 ...then we will seek editors for that work. 16:53:56 nicktr: I would do the PR with the CG's text 16:53:56 q? 16:53:57 zakim, who's here? 16:53:59 Present: VincentK, nicktr, ShaneM, MattS, zkoch, rouslan, manu, dlongley, Ian, AdrianHB 16:53:59 On IRC I see alyver, jnormore, Roy, Mike5, rouslan, zkoch, MattS, dlehn, VincentK, Zakim, RRSAgent, nicktr, shepazu, collier-matthew, hober, ShaneM, dlongley, manu, AdrianHB, 16:53:59 ... davidillsley, schuki, slightlyoff, mkwst, dwim_, adrianba, wseltzer, trackbot, Ian 16:54:01 wpwg has joined #wpwg 16:54:01 put it in the proposals folder in the Wg repo 16:54:17 ACTION: Manu to submit a PR for HTTP API into the proposals folder for the WPWG repo. 16:54:18 Created ACTION-17 - Submit a pr for http api into the proposals folder for the wpwg repo. [on Manu Sporny - due 2016-04-07]. 16:54:26 Postponed: 16:54:27 - Using the group's general issues list 16:54:31 - Facilitating participation 16:54:36 Topic: Flows Task Force Update 16:54:41 +1 16:55:02 MattS: I am keen to encourage participation by more WG participants 16:55:13 I have to drop off to make a 10am meeting that’s in another buidling. Thanks all! 16:55:21 ...one way to do this is to turn flows task force work into payment method specs 16:55:38 zakim, who's here? 16:55:38 Present: VincentK, nicktr, ShaneM, MattS, zkoch, rouslan, manu, dlongley, Ian, AdrianHB 16:55:41 On IRC I see wpwg, alyver, jnormore, Roy, Mike5, rouslan, MattS, dlehn, VincentK, Zakim, RRSAgent, nicktr, shepazu, collier-matthew, hober, ShaneM, dlongley, manu, AdrianHB, 16:55:41 ... davidillsley, schuki, slightlyoff, mkwst, dwim_, adrianba, wseltzer, trackbot, Ian 16:56:08 VincentK: Currently we have been focused on card payments... 16:56:25 q+ to ask if we plan to reintegrate flows into browser API spec? or some other spec/doc? 16:56:25 q? 16:56:26 ...we need to look at a larger set of payment methods (via payment method specifications) 16:56:30 ...to help test the API 16:56:59 +1 to publishing as many payment method specs as we can put together as long as we don't favour quantity over quality 16:57:02 NickTR: Yes, the more we do the greater the chances of adoption of the API 16:57:14 MattS: We had a FTF meeting in London with myself, Cyril, Jean-Yves, and Frederic 16:57:25 ...we reviewed the work and the flows work. 16:57:43 s/MattS: I am keen/Nicktr: I am keen/ 16:57:48 ....we ended up spending a lot of time on extensibility and versioning in the following sense: documenting addition payment methods 16:57:58 ...we checked with Ian on process 16:58:17 ..so that while we are NOT chartered to write payment specs for these payment methods, we are not prohibited from creating WG Notes 16:58:40 ...so we could have WG Notes for multiple payment methods (not just cards) 16:58:45 q? 16:58:51 ...so I think the flows task force will contribute multiple specs 16:59:38 ...this is not only for the flows task force...others encouraged to submit payment method specs 16:59:49 ...we have commitments already for SEPA Credit Transfer, Union Pay, 3DS 16:59:51 (IJ: +1) 16:59:56 q- 16:59:58 not 3DS 17:00:07 SEPA CT, SEPA DD, UnionPay 17:00:09 ok tx 17:00:51 Topic: Next meetings 17:00:52 We have no people volunteered so far for 3DS, but I would welcome such as proposal, is anyone up for this? 17:01:04 PROPOSED DATES FOR FTF: 27-29 June in London (with an IG meeting) 17:01:08 ...I will send out an email 17:01:22 q+ 17:01:30 Next meeting: 7 April 17:01:32 Regrets: NickTR 17:01:38 ack ShaneM 17:01:46 ack shepazu 17:02:18 AndChat|139376 has joined #wpwg 17:02:18 Shepazu: Risk of overlap with blockchain WG workshop 17:02:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/31-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 17:08:12 sam has joined #wpwg 17:08:13 wpwg has joined #wpwg 17:08:36 sam_ has joined #wpwg 17:10:19 AndChat|139376 has joined #wpwg 17:11:23 shepazu_ has joined #wpwg 17:12:14 alyver has joined #wpwg 17:26:08 MattS has left #wpwg 17:30:13 alyver has joined #wpwg 17:46:35 alyver has joined #wpwg 18:08:16 alyver has joined #wpwg 19:27:04 Zakim has left #wpwg 19:31:25 rrsagent, make minutes 19:31:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/31-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 19:31:28 rrsagent, set logs public 19:35:26 shepazu has joined #wpwg