See also: IRC log
<ltoth> can someone send the voice number?
<ltoth> * thank you
<jheuer> * having problems to connect by phone, trying to solve it.
<scribe> scribe: Ian
<manu> Ian: I'd like to add a quick mention of coupons/loyalty. Just a minute at the end of the call.
<manu> Linda: I have coupons / loyalty items I'd like to add as well.
[David hands to Manu]
Manu: We have a editors draft of
a charter, use cases, FAQ
... we put together a questionnaire
<manu> Verifiable Claims Working Group Draft Charter Questionnaire: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wS32QHfxeqVu32LyZt57fVjqnywdET2ytLcaHhVxbFY/edit?usp=drive_web
Manu: we are circulating among
interviewees, credentials CG, WPIG, and October 2015 survey
respondents
... we have aorund 20 responses
... I would like to get around 50
... before we say that we have a decent amount of
feedback.
... one of the more unfortunate things is that we have almost
no response from the WPIG...mostly people who have been engaged
for the past year have been responding.
... also slightly concerning is that most of the respondents
are those who have favored the work traditionally.
... I will be prodding people this week and next
... expect to close the questionnaire next week
... responses so far are very favorable...though I am concerned
that we are not hearing from people who had concerns about the
work.
... are getting some good responses.
IJ: Please share the (non-public) list
Manu: Will do
... will share in member space
... since we said we would not share publicly
... Of respondents so far (20) strong support for the problem
statement and goals in the editors draft charter
<kriske> tx Ian
Manu: People who are responding
so far are supportive
... regarding participation:
- 2 have indicated that they are not members and would join
- N have indicated they are members and would participate
- Another 4 are non-members not interested in participating but interested in monitoring
IJ: How many implementers?
Manu: I count 11 who would encourage adoption in production
IJ: How many will write software?
Manu: I count 4 definitely (who have products)
IJ: It would be key to get those who would implement involved in the spec development.
Manu: Agreed.
dezell: How many are involved in payments?
Manu: About 4
<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask if payment method developers could be implementers?
AdrianHB: I pinged the mailing
list recently on this....
... would using verifiable claims in a payment method
specification be a useful way of showing implementation?
... e.g., how to share claims in a payment method spec
Manu: We hesitate to do that
since work has not yet been approved
... but I agree it's interesting to see how the work
applies
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note how to express verifiable claims in a payment method spec.
Manu: Is there support for that?
dezell: +1
... and I think in line with what Pat Adler has suggested
<Erik> Pat referred to it as building blocks
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we're talking about general customer input (kinda) in Web Payments IG.
Manu: The WPWG is moving in the
direction of creating a customer-data mediator
... specification
... collecting various types of information
... during the payment process
... as we've argued, that's a verifiable claims use case
... but the WPWG use case is "unverified claims"...the customer
makes assertions and there is no verifiability
... so there's another demonstration where the WPWG is talking
about collecting claims from the customer
<padler> yes... as I recall, the key point was to highlight why this capability was critical to web payments, but that it is also a core primitive for other use cases that are independent or tangential to payments
Manu: there's another option here
.. the WPWG is trying to solve the problem in a lightweight
way
... but the fact that they keep adding arguments suggests we
need a claims capturing piece of the web platform
... so another way to say this is that the WPWG shows the gap
and need
... and we could show how to address with the VCTF work
<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to expand on my proposal and why I'd do a payment method spec and not try and put VC in the core API spec
AdrianHB: So my thinking behind
the payment method spec idea is partly driven by the fact that
we are looking for the WPWG participants to write them, but
anybody can write one.
... I think it will be easier to get a payment method spec
adopted rather than change the API
... I see this as an ideal opportunity for vctf to show the
format they want to use with, e.g., card payments
... So you could push through a specific use case to justify
the general goals
... whereas if we try to fit into the data-capture aspects of
the API, that's a much higher hill to climb
... the use case today is "short cut to get data" which is not
about verifiable claims
... I believe verifiable claims could improve this
situation
... and even that claims come from third-party identity
provider
... but that's a big ask today
<manu> Ian: It's not clear that the WG will adopt random proposals from non-participants.
AdrianHB: A WG note that is evidence of value of verifiable claims, in a format compatible with the VCTF work (and the payment request API), I think that's a solid cornerstone
<Zakim> jheuer, you wanted to say that we might need discrete claims in the API, with verifiable claims being a subset
jheuer: We should think about
claims more generally (not just those that are
verifiable)
... for example, providing an address should be a job by an
identity provider ... and whether verifiable or not are
different (e.g., depends on business model)
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that even though he agrees w/ AdrianHB, the WG Charter says: This Working Group will not define a new digital payment scheme. and to note that we could
manu: I like Adrian's
suggestion...perhaps we will try to come up with a
proposal
... The WPWG charter says we will not define a new digital
payment scheme.
... this could easily be seen to be competing with some payment
schemes.
<ShaneM> I note that the VCTF use cases has a flow that could be expanded to a payment method.
manu: we don't want to alienate
other orgs
... regarding jheuer's comment: vctf addresses claims that are
not verifiable...they are simply "not yet signed"
<Zakim> padler, you wanted to ask where VC API might fall in a layered "stack" API's used in Payments?
padler: It would be helpful for
the IG to think about the communication mechanism we can use
within the full membership that shows how claims work
... e.g., claims higher up the stack, but a claims API is lower
level and could be shown to be a brick for higher level topics
like e-commerce/coupons
... I think we need to do a better job to communicate how this
proposal fits in
<jheuer> +1 to padler's positioning of claims in scenarios outside of payment
<manu> Ian: It's interesting to think about a Payment Method spec as a way to demonstrate something - I recommend that that spec isn't brought into WG at this time. Getting payment registration figured out, for example. Even among payment specs, it's important that we address common payment mechanisms first to test API and relationship to reality.
<manu> Ian: I think Credentials CG is the right place to work on that spec for discussion - it's still helpful to see if API is useful, but I think it would be a low priority in the WG today, not to mention the challenges of getting buy in to verifiable claims work. Not pushing back on the idea to show general usefulness, just think that tactic doesn't feel like the right tactic.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to position how work is incubated and should we propose documents? and to note that the IG should produce a note stating a gap in the Web Platform.
Manu: Want to be sure we get to
other agenda items
... FYI, Microsoft and Google responses to draft charter were
public it turns out
... on the question of "how much incubation"...I think it's not
the right answer
... when do you know "it's ready"..some people feel it is ready
some don't
... I think we are in a weird state...we have technology that's
been implemented
... what do we need to go back and incubatge
... and should the VCTF propose a set of documents?
... that could be a kind of trap
... we wanted to lay out the problem statement and allow the WG
to solve it
... but two (at least) W3C orgs are telling us they want to see
in more detail
... the way it could backfire is if they do not like the
proposals.
... any thoughts from the group on how to address this?
<dlongley> i think the only way we get people involved that aren't already involved is to start a WG -- and incubating with the same group of people won't change much (if anything).
<Erik> Manu, we need to have "reasonable consensus" not absolute consensus. You cant please everyone all the time
<dlongley> +1 to Erik
dezell: Perhaps a missing is migration of CG (claims) use cases to the IG
<manu> Ian: I'm not sure, Manu, which problem you're trying to solve - need a clear statement of problem you're trying to solve.
<manu> Ian: The CG work is visible, there are concrete specs - from the point of view of people wantingn to see concrete things, the CG has already done what people expect.
<jheuer> * Sorry - I thought I was on mute!
<manu> Ian: So, the question is - one that all groups face - how do I get greater buy-in to the work. People that are participating in the work are excited about it. As it bled into the IG, there is also interest from the IG - strong support for the Task Force. Ongoing goal of understanding use cases as they apply to payments, and the other efforts of the Task Force and CG is to get buy-in from people that do other types of work in this space. That's where it's been diff
<manu> icult.
<manu> Ian: If the problem is how do you get more buy-in? I don't think there is any magic - you just have to work it.
<manu> Ian: There is also the question of Process - if you don't have feedback that you need, W3C Process works through those items. I don't know that there is a way to have an airtight - very responsive to suggestions, I appreciate all that you are doing and have done in the Task Force to get that additional buy-in.
<manu> Ian: Some people might not be interested, some may have differing views - not sure what problem you are trying to solve.
<manu> Ian: If it's having an air tight way of going forward, I don't know how to do that... recognize the challenge of trying to stay high-level while also showing concrete work.
<manu> Ian: People might agree with high-level problem, but not low-level approach other than trying to say "we're going to try it" or "we're going to dump it" or something else.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that he'd rather not take it to email. and to
Manu: There are multiple
problems. I agree with everything that you said.
... I don't think those problems that you outlined are the
concrete short term problem, however.
... the short term problem is "when to put the charter in front
of w3c membership"
... we will not have an "airtight" case when we do that, but I
want to be sure that we've done what the IG thinks we should
do
... some concrete ideas include:
<padler> to clarify, I was not suggesting that communicating use cases was the best way to approach... I was suggesting that we have to find a way to communicate the gaps that exist by showing how the claims work relates to objectives that the W3C is attempting to achieve... (ex. Commerce activities, Publishing Activities, Payments Activities, etc)
* Break down technical work in the CG to match the charter
* Get the responses to the questionnaire
scribe: if they are strongly supportive, that's a clear signal we should proceed
<padler> use cases may be part of that communication, but there is higher level synthesis that needs to connect use cases across activities..
* Other things we COULD do but I am skeptical
scribe: e.g, here's a note with a
problem statement that points out a gap in the web
platform
... e.g., AdrianHB's suggestion around a payment method spec
and showing the upside to using verifiable claims
... downside of those approaches is that they require even more
reading
... I think we are starting to see that some people don't want
to read the work.
... I think that most of the people who have criticized the
work have not dug deeply into them, and have filled in their
own conclusions
... so the question is "what does the IG want to do" in the
meantime, or do we just wait for the questionnaire results?
<manu> Ian: I agree with you by the way, asking people that have expressed concerns and showing them the charter seems responsive to the interviewees.
<manu> Ian: My personal take, just a short period of time to see responses to questionnaire. Let's see where we are after then.
<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to discuss "work in IG"
<ShaneM> I think if ther eis sufficient support from the surveys, especially from implementors, then we should press ahead.
dezell: I will send a request to the IG to answer the questionnaire
<manu> +1 to meeting next Monday
<manu> I find these discussions very helpful.
dezell: 25 April
<scribe> Postponed until next week:
* Coupons
<manu> Ian: Linda if you'd like to send me an email about Coupons / Loyalty - that'd be great.
IJ: We are on hold ; stay tuned
<manu> Ian: The mid-year meeting is on hold - stay tuned.
<manu> Ian: There is a Blockchain Workshop in development - we're trying to figure that out before we set a date.