15:59:55 RRSAgent has joined #wpwg 15:59:55 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/07-wpwg-irc 15:59:57 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:59:57 Zakim has joined #wpwg 15:59:59 Zakim, this will be 15:59:59 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 16:00:00 Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference 16:00:00 Date: 07 April 2016 16:00:16 agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160407 16:00:53 dezell has joined #wpwg 16:01:22 MattS has joined #wpwg 16:01:42 present+ MattS 16:01:51 padler has joined #wpwg 16:01:53 present+ AdrianHB 16:01:56 present+ padler 16:01:57 present+ Manu 16:02:09 present+ dlongley 16:03:07 maheshkk has joined #wpwg 16:03:12 kriske has joined #wpwg 16:03:24 present+ yaso 16:03:25 rouslan has joined #wpwg 16:03:30 present+ 16:03:38 lgombos has joined #wpwg 16:03:43 present+ 16:03:48 present+ 16:03:49 present+ 16:03:54 scribe: Ian 16:04:06 Topic: Status of Call for Consensus 16:04:11 present+ 16:04:21 Brian has joined #wpwg 16:04:22 -> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160407 Agenda 16:05:07 AdrianHB: CFC has started -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Apr/0012.html 16:05:21 ...please review them and respond by 12 April 16:05:42 ...sorry for delay in getting this launched (but handled a few issues in reasonable fashion) 16:05:44 q+ on Call for Consensus comments which may have been lost in the mailing list traffic. 16:05:58 ...we'd like to hear active support or expressions of concern 16:06:08 q+ to ask what a minus one means if it is not a formal objection 16:06:13 ...no Formal Objections yet but have received some feedback. 16:06:40 ...work started on FAQ 16:06:51 Ian: First draft of an FAQ to accompany FPWD -> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/PaymentRequestFAQ 16:06:52 Ian: Here's the first draft of an FAQ 16:06:55 Ian: This will accompany FPWD 16:07:03 Blog post draft: https://www.w3.org/2016/03/15-wpwg-blog.txt 16:07:12 Ian: We're anticipating a blog post as well on the WG homepage framing the publication. 16:07:22 Ian: Presumably on the WG site, there will be a link to a FAQ. 16:07:37 Ian: This is a response to Mike Smith's request - this is different from the Charter FAQ 16:07:54 Ian: The Charter FAQ predates our work, I wanted to revisit some of those questions in light of our progress. 16:08:26 Ian: We'll update the list of specs published as we know which docs are published via the CfC. 16:08:31 adrianhb: That looks like a useful resource 16:08:32 q? 16:08:36 ack manu 16:08:36 manu, you wanted to comment on Call for Consensus comments which may have been lost in the mailing list traffic. 16:08:37 ack manu 16:08:59 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Apr/0022.html 16:09:04 manu: See Digital Bazaar comments 16:09:11 ...including the rationale 16:09:22 ...I suggest people read that. 16:09:48 ack matt 16:09:48 MattS, you wanted to ask what a minus one means if it is not a formal objection 16:09:56 q+ MattS 16:10:17 adrianhb: When people have comments not related to the CfC, please start an independent thread. 16:10:32 ...to make it easier to follow the CfC thread. 16:10:37 ack MattS 16:10:55 MattS: Manu, what does -1 or .5 mean in your email? 16:11:12 q+ 16:11:14 roy has joined #wpwg 16:11:26 adrianhb: We are looking for consensus; this is not a majority vote. 16:11:33 ...a Formal Objection means "there is not consensus" 16:12:05 ...Manu's comments indicate they do not want to raise a Formal Objection...they are indicating lack of support but don't want to "block" the publications 16:12:07 q- 16:12:10 q+ 16:12:23 IJ: Manu, does that represent what you intended? 16:12:35 Manu: We support the publication of documents at a later time once concerns are addressed. 16:13:17 ....if we see lack of support for publishing, we would expect that input to be taken into account. 16:13:48 MattS: I see some organizations and some individuals have responded. What's the relationship? 16:14:36 Ian: The Chairs and I discussed this before announcing the call for consensus - more verbiage around organizational or individual responses. The W3C process is very explicit that when there are multiple voices speaking between the same organization, that the chairs took that into account. 16:14:55 Ian: We didn't feel like we needed to say "only one person per organization" 16:15:14 Ian: Individuals from same organization may have different opinions, we're trying to take individuals opinions into account. 16:15:24 q? 16:16:16 dezell: NACS will respond later today. Just wanted to point out that some of Manu's concerns are not about quality of work, but about reaction of people in the payment industry 16:16:17 q+ 16:16:19 ach deze 16:16:22 ack deze 16:16:48 dezell: I think that as a WG member, I'd like to request that the chairs think about how to mitigate some of these concerns without slowing things down 16:16:49 ack me 16:16:52 Ian: I'd like to speak to that directly. 16:17:06 Ian: I have appreciated hearing from people about that concern and what general expectations general audiences may have. 16:17:40 Ian: I think it's important to recognize that it's a W3C expectation to make early work available. If we publish a document that's early work, or wait a month to publish early work, that we'd have the level of maturity that some in the industry might anticipate. 16:17:57 https://www.w3.org/2016/03/15-wpwg-blog.txt 16:18:08 Ian: To mitigate this, we've created the blog post and I welcome feedback on the blog post. That's going to be one of the principal deliverables, thanks to Matt Saxon for providing feedback. 16:18:09 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/PaymentRequestFAQ\ 16:18:53 q+ 16:18:55 Ian: The FAQ is the second instrument - the way to can contribute collectively - bring stakeholders interests together in FAQ - there is time between now and end of CfC - two weeks in best of case - I really urge people to not just express concern, but help express it by fleshing out these materials. 16:19:17 Ian: Even if we were to delay, some would not find them mature - let's get these things out and provide material to mitigate these concerns. 16:19:21 ack kris 16:19:44 kriske: The discussion today is about FPWDs...knowing that there are issues in the document that need to be fleshed out....what are we trying to find consensus on? 16:20:26 adrianhb: As someone who worked in the payments industry for a while, I appreciate the sentiment that this is a brave new world. 16:20:30 q+ for a quick comment on content vs. signalling. 16:20:46 ...its our job as wg participants and members to "break it down" for people. 16:20:54 (...cf previous comments from NickTR ) 16:21:16 ...W3C specs are not the same as ISO standards (with legal mandates behind them) 16:21:44 ...no obligation on people to implement W3C specs...it's our responsibility to explain to our own orgs this process 16:22:06 "Publication as a First Public Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress. " 16:22:23 Ian: What we try to do at any stage of the W3C process is indicate the level of consensus for the work. 16:22:27 "This draft highlights some of the pending issues that are still to be discussed in the working group. No decision has been taken on the outcome of these issues including whether they are valid. " 16:22:43 Ian: Earlier in the status section we highlight pending issues, and we note no decision is made on these issues. 16:23:06 Ian: We try to not that this is not the full set of deliverables that this group has produced. 16:23:42 Ian: For this set of specs and picture of architecture document, is this the right direction? The call for consensus is not that we have agreed on the current proposals, but simply whether they should be published as documents with open issues in them. 16:24:37 Ian: The publication is basically saying - this is the start of a conversation, we want more people looking at this. 16:24:52 Ian: Starting with the next call, we'll shift our attention to addressing these issues - keep logging issues, keep them coming. 16:25:01 q? 16:25:07 ack dez 16:25:07 dezell, you wanted to discuss a quick comment on content vs. signalling. 16:25:46 dezell: I wanted to point out that in previous WGs I've been involved with, it's been useful to distinguish content from signals. 16:26:09 ...I think what we want to "worry about" ... we don't want to lose people silently. 16:26:11 +1 to David Ezell 16:26:56 adrianhb: Occasional public signals help keep people engaged 16:27:00 ...since they see progress. 16:27:05 Topic: HTTP API Proposal 16:27:29 http://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/web-payments-http-api/index.html 16:27:30 AdrianHB: Manu proposed the WG take up the CG's HTTP API spec -> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/web-payments-http-api/index.html 16:28:00 manu: This spec gives non-browser web clients a way to initiate payment requests and process payments, and provide ack's back to a server. 16:28:21 ..you can think of the HTTP API as really important for things like automated payments, or "headless " processing 16:28:33 ...(that is where the user is not present but has delegated authority). 16:28:43 ..the draft spec is simple and high-level 16:29:08 ...[Manu summarizes flow characterized by the API] 16:29:19 -> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/web-payments-http-api/index.html#payment-flow-overview 16:29:38 ...we have stripped out information related to JSON-LD. 16:30:05 q? 16:30:25 q+ 16:30:33 adrianhb: How mature do you think the spec is? 16:30:54 Manu: It's nowhere near done. 16:31:05 q+ to ask about flow... 16:31:06 ..the hope is that people in the WG would review it and raise issues on the document. 16:31:12 ...there's a lot of coordination work that needs to be done. 16:31:13 q+ 16:31:26 manu: My hope is that people will raise issues on the spec over the next few weeks. 16:31:45 ...after gathering issues, we would then publish as an FPWD with issue markers 16:31:52 ..and then start to address those issues 16:32:17 q+ to ask if we should move this to a separate repo? 16:32:23 adrianhb: In terms of logging issues, the proposals are in the main WG repository, I would ask that people who wish to raise issues against this proposal (or any proposal not yet adopted by the WG), please use the main repo. 16:32:27 ...and tag them 16:32:32 ack kris 16:32:41 kriske: With my ISO hat on, I think this one is really interesting 16:32:50 the media type for the diagram is text/jumly+sequence. I have no idea what that is, but my Chrome browser has no idea what that is. 16:32:50 ...these are the flows that will hit the payment service providers 16:33:00 q+ to not that we want to strongly support integration w/ ISO20022 16:33:11 ...is this where interop will be key? 16:33:21 Manu: In general, yes, we want to see a lot more alignment with ISO 20022 16:33:35 ...to do that we may need to speak more about the messages that are passed back and forth 16:33:45 ...but it's up to the WG to determine to what degree and how to do that. 16:33:55 ...we have another proposal to submit to the group on payment messages 16:34:12 ...in the HTTP API we need a full-blown message 16:34:20 q? 16:34:22 ...question is how to express message in both worlds 16:34:29 q+ to talk about webidl vs json messages 16:34:48 Kriske: I am not speaking about ISO20022 payment messages...but rather ISO components that would be useful in the flow 16:34:55 ...I assume this is a RESTful exchange 16:35:22 ....ISO is not in the space of JSON calls, but what I'm interested in is whether there are ISO20022 components that could be used 16:35:36 ...these are the same components that banks or service providers would pick up in use in other contexts 16:35:45 manu: Yes 16:37:07 padler: (On a URL for callback) 16:37:37 ...I wanted to point out that there's a second main flow which is out-of-band acknowledgment 16:37:40 Manu: See issue marker #2 16:37:50 q? 16:37:57 ack padler 16:37:57 padler, you wanted to ask about flow... 16:38:15 q- 16:38:42 Ian: A few terse comments - I support bringing this specification to the WG, I support delaying attention on FPWD. 16:38:43 + 1 to bringing proposal into the working group.. 16:38:52 q+ to say no, payment app registration is not next priority 16:39:01 ack Ian 16:39:24 Ian: I think in-browser and out of browser should proceed w/ their own goals in mind. It is not a requirement for them to align. I don't want to have an a-priori requirement to say messages should be shared between the two. 16:39:43 Ian: I don't want us to derail getting to FPWD or getting payment app registration into place. 16:39:45 ack manu 16:39:45 manu, you wanted to ask if we should move this to a separate repo? and to not that we want to strongly support integration w/ ISO20022 and to say no, payment app registration is 16:39:45 ack me 16:39:47 ack manu 16:39:48 ... not next priority 16:40:06 Manu: I thought this group had resolved to pick up the HTTP API right after FPWD. 16:40:58 IJ: We also resolved earlier to delay HTTP API until June. 16:40:59 I remember that the group agreed HTTP was next at the F2F. I don't remember a date. 16:41:06 iJ:...I think payment app registration is more important 16:41:17 +1 to bringing it in 16:41:22 Manu: Yes, payment app registration is important, but don't want to delay HTTP API discussion any longer 16:41:38 (To reiterate: I am +1 to bringing it in; just want to delay discussion) 16:41:48 Brian_ has joined #wpwg 16:41:50 Manu: Should we create a separate repo for the HTTP API spec? 16:41:56 AdrianHB: I am fine to do that. 16:42:05 ...I think we should give the group a chance to review the proposal 16:42:13 Can't we have multiple priorities, we after all have a large group of people - I would like the chairs to give a clear priority steer and make this public in the blog that accompanies FPWD 16:42:19 q+ to agree that we should follow a process, just don't know what the process is. 16:42:27 ....raise broad issues, and encourage multiple proposals. 16:42:46 ack manu 16:42:46 manu, you wanted to agree that we should follow a process, just don't know what the process is. 16:42:51 ...ok to put it in its own repo once we've taken it on 16:43:24 (IJ does NOT think that this is documented in significant detail...but it is lightly documented) 16:43:25 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/How-the-Working-Group-works 16:43:45 adrianhb: If we decide to take up a proposal, it should go into its own repo. 16:43:50 Brian__ has joined #wpwg 16:43:53 q+ to be concerned about "two stages" - proposal and then FPWD-track? 16:44:11 q- 16:44:24 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/How-the-Working-Group-works 16:44:59 q? 16:45:00 Ian: This document is light on details, we should document these things in more detail, we'll get this updated as best we can. 16:45:11 Topic: Payment App Registration proposal 16:45:34 https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/paymentapps/payment-apps.html 16:45:45 Adrianhb: I started work on this, based on the Google explainer and some info in CG specs. 16:45:48 q+ Whilst we are talking proposals, should we highlight that Cyril has submitted one also 16:45:51 ....similar format as the specs 16:45:58 +1 to MattS 16:46:06 q+ can we highlight that Cyril has submitted a proposal also 16:46:06 ...at a high level it proposes we use the AppManifest spec 16:46:27 q+ highlight that Cyril has submitted a proposal also 16:46:34 q+ 16:46:36 adrianhb: The rough lifecycle of an app is that app publishers will publish a manifest, 16:46:47 ...user asks Mediator to install the manifest 16:46:53 ..this gives information about supported payment methods 16:47:09 ...user selects appropriate payment apps 16:47:24 ...mediator sends payment request data to URL that is part of the App Manifest 16:47:58 ....and response from app could vary, from information about how to launch something, or a payment response, or some sort of custom response (e.g., to work with native apps) 16:48:15 ...the goal being to enable apps of any type, but to provide a standard for Web-based payment apps whether with or without UI 16:48:22 ....this spec has a lot of issue markers in it 16:48:35 ...it also takes ideas from a project called Ballista, but that may change 16:48:50 ..it's an early work and probably needs and explainer and more explicit information about lifecycle 16:48:51 q+ to ask if this proposal has support from Google/Microsoft? 16:49:03 (IJ: I sent comments about lifecycle on the list) 16:49:07 ack matt 16:49:23 MattS: Does this overlap or complement Zach's explainer? 16:49:30 AdrianHB: It's based on the ideas but not exactly the same 16:49:47 ...one area where we have a point of contention...I did have a chat with Zach yesterday 16:50:06 ...in principle Zach seems ok with this draft spec, but there are details to work out about browser behavior 16:50:14 ...use of how to handle response that we need to iron out 16:50:15 q- 16:50:30 ...the major "point of contention" is "do we map on payment app ID or payment method? 16:50:38 ...so can you request that a payment app be loaded? 16:50:58 matts: Please raise these points of contention as issues 16:51:02 ...so that we can contribute 16:51:15 q+ 16:51:17 adrianhb: I assume that Zach will log the issue unless I manage to persuade him. 16:51:37 Topic: Cyril Vignet's SEPA Credit Transfer proposal 16:51:44 MattS: Please note Cyril's proposal 16:51:50 q+ 16:51:54 q- 16:52:00 https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/paymentapps/payment-apps.html 16:52:10 AdrianHB:Ian has converted to respec: 16:52:14 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Apr/0024.html 16:52:29 ..I want to [Thank Cyril] and encourage this sort of input for specific payment methods 16:52:42 ...thanks very much to you, Matt, for connecting the flow work to the payment method specifications 16:53:04 ..I want to emphasize to people in the group that this is a useful way for participants to document payment method thoughts 16:53:13 ...please contact the Chairs if you have questions about how to use GitHub, or write specs 16:53:47 ...this will help demonstrate that the API stands up to the reality of the payments industry 16:54:00 q? 16:54:43 AdrianHB: I would like to ask the WG to make comments and/or make counter proposals. 16:54:52 ...a week may be short given CFC 16:55:03 -1 to this proposal from AdrianHB 16:55:10 q+ 16:55:43 Ian: I would much rather say "There are concrete proposals on the table." 16:56:21 Ian: I don't know why we would reject another fully baked HTTP API proposal. I don't think we should stop proposals from coming in. 16:56:44 AdrianHB: Please review the three proposals and we'll decide whether to adopt them at the 21 April call 16:56:53 Adrian: The proposal is to have the discussion in two weeks and ask if we should pull them into the group. If everyone agrees that they like them, and there were no counter proposals, our ED draft specs for HTTP API will be pulled in. 16:57:19 Ian: I think we should treat each one independently, I think the scope should be "On 21st April, we will make decisions on whether or not to adopt the 3 current proposals" 16:57:41 Ian: If someone shows up a week before that date, we'll say we'll consider that additional proposal for two-three weeks. 16:57:57 Adrian: I think we don't want to delay making a decision on adopting proposals. 16:58:00 q+ 16:58:07 q- 16:58:14 ack Ian 16:58:20 +1 to AdrianHB process model 16:58:33 Ian: I'm happy to not discuss this further, if people propose something is taken up by the group, the group should give it consideration. That's all I mean. 16:58:54 +1 to AdrianHB (let's set a date to make a decision), then also allow any proposals at any time too. 16:59:00 AdrianHB: I'm trying to get us to a point that says "We have a proposal, and now we have an Editors Draft of that proposal." Setting a date let's the group know what we're attempting to do. 16:59:10 Brian has joined #wpwg 16:59:10 Ian: Setting a date for a thing that's known makes sense to him. 16:59:18 q+ to clarify what he's hearing. 16:59:31 Ian: I don't want to commit now to make a decision about a thing I don't know about yet. 17:00:10 +1 to moving on! 17:00:17 +1 to Ian 17:00:33 AdrianHB: So if someone else shows up with new Payment Request API, we'd consider it? 17:00:46 NOTE: 17:00:48 Ian: Yes, the group may say no, but we should consider it. 17:00:55 * On 21 April we will discuss the three proposals on the table, to take up: 17:00:58 - HTTP API draft 17:01:02 - Payment App Registration spec 17:01:09 - Cyril's SEPA payment method spec 17:01:12 +1 to support, no objection 17:01:13 +1 to the proposal 17:01:19 (No objections to that path) 17:01:55 Ian: One important note - we've been talking about face-to-face at end of June, but there is also a W3C workshop on blockchain around same time. 17:01:56 Topic: Workshop 17:02:19 I'd like to attend the Blockchain workshop. 17:02:56 I'd love to see it tacked on to the beginning or end of the Web Payments face-to-face 17:03:29 Ok, but only because different people from visa would probably attend each meeting 17:03:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/07-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 17:04:04 would like to attend both.. but understand if not possible to avoid conflict.. 17:04:11 FOR NEXT TIME: 17:04:16 * Encouraging contributions 17:04:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/07-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 17:04:44 AdrianHB: I look forward to people's responses to the CfC 17:04:49 Topic: Next meeting 17:04:58 14 April usual time (noon ET) 17:05:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/07-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 18:11:27 yaso has joined #wpwg 19:00:55 Zakim has left #wpwg