16:02:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpwg
16:02:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/21-wpwg-irc
16:02:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:02:32 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wpwg
16:02:32 <dezell> Present+ dezell
16:02:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
16:02:34 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:02:35 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference
16:02:35 <trackbot> Date: 21 April 2016
16:02:38 <Ian> agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160421
16:02:46 <Ian> zakim, who's here?
16:02:46 <Zakim> Present: dezell
16:02:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, dezell, Brian, alyver, zkoch, nicktr, collier-matthew, shepazu, ShaneM, trackbot, manu, dlongley, mkwst, dveditz, Ian, hober, adrianba, dwim_, davidillsley,
16:02:47 <Zakim> ... AdrianHB, slightlyoff, dlehn, wseltzer, Mike5
16:03:03 <Ian> present+ alyver, shepazu
16:03:09 <Ian> zakim, who's here?
16:03:09 <Zakim> Present: dezell, alyver, shepazu
16:03:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, dezell, Brian, alyver, zkoch, nicktr, collier-matthew, shepazu, ShaneM, trackbot, manu, dlongley, mkwst, dveditz, Ian, hober, adrianba, dwim_, davidillsley,
16:03:10 <Zakim> ... AdrianHB, slightlyoff, dlehn, wseltzer, Mike5
16:03:19 <Ian> present+ shanem, manu, Ian, nicktr,
16:03:26 <Ian> present+ zkoch
16:03:28 <Ian> zakim, who's here?
16:03:28 <Zakim> Present: dezell, alyver, shepazu, shanem, manu, Ian, nicktr, zkoch
16:03:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, dezell, Brian, alyver, zkoch, nicktr, collier-matthew, shepazu, ShaneM, trackbot, manu, dlongley, mkwst, dveditz, Ian, hober, adrianba, dwim_, davidillsley,
16:03:30 <Zakim> ... AdrianHB, slightlyoff, dlehn, wseltzer, Mike5
16:03:38 <MattS> MattS has joined #wpwg
16:03:38 <manu> present+ ChristopherA
16:03:39 <Ian> present+ Christopher_allen
16:03:42 <MattS> present+ MattS
16:03:48 <manu> present- ChristopherA
16:04:08 <Ian> present+ Brian_Sullivan
16:04:17 <Ian> Topic: FPWDs
16:04:20 <Ian> scribe: Ian
16:04:39 <Ian> nicktr: Congrats to the group and thanks to everyone who has contributed and who continues to contribute via github
16:04:48 <Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Apr/0150.html
16:05:02 <Ian> pub notice -. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Apr/0179.html
16:05:16 <maheshk> maheshk has joined #wpwg
16:05:37 <Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/charter-201510.html#coordination
16:06:22 <Ian> https://www.w3.org/blog/wpwg/2016/04/21/first-public-working-drafts-of-payment-request-api/
16:06:24 <Mike5> Present+
16:06:31 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/PaymentRequestFAQ
16:06:56 <AdrianHB> present+ AdrianHB
16:06:59 <nicktr> q?
16:07:06 <Roy> Roy has joined #wpwg
16:07:11 <shepazu> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160421
16:07:17 <manu> Ian: I've prepared a number of documents (linked above) that goes with the FPWD publication.
16:07:20 <nicktr> q?
16:07:24 <Ian> IJ: I will be reaching out to groups listed in our charter
16:07:31 <ChristopherA> ChristopherA has joined #wpwg
16:07:41 <nicktr> q?
16:07:48 <ChristopherA> Thanks you for interruption for IRC details. Officially joined group today.
16:07:52 <ChristopherA> For Blockstream.
16:08:09 <Ian> nicktr: I will be contacting three main groups at EMVCo about the publications
16:08:15 <Ian> ...I will ask the groups to review the specs
16:08:22 <Ian> Topic: Welcome Chris Allen
16:08:23 <nicktr> q?
16:08:27 <Ian> nicktr: Welcome!
16:08:31 <rouslan> rouslan has joined #wpwg
16:08:38 <rouslan> present+
16:08:40 <Ian> (ij seconds the welcome)
16:08:53 <ChristopherA> (minor note, always spelled Christopher Allen ;-)
16:08:57 <Ian> topic: Proposal that the group take on the SEPA payment method spec
16:09:14 <manu> s/Chris Allen/Christopher Allen/
16:09:22 <Ian> MattS: Here's the draft proposal:
16:09:22 <Ian> https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/basic-ct-dd-payment/basic-ct-dd-payment.html
16:09:27 <manu> q+ to provide feedback on SEPA Payment Method spec.
16:09:41 <Ian> ...one goal is to validate the API approach by having multiple payment method specs
16:09:50 <Ian> ...it paves the way for others to do similarly
16:10:06 <Ian> ...and can help us avoid different orgs creating competing specs for the same payment method
16:10:24 <Ian> ...today's discussion is about taking it on into the WG...not focused on content today
16:10:25 <manu> q+ to +1 for another ubiquitous payment method example.
16:10:35 <Ian> q+
16:10:37 <ChristopherA> It is useful to me, as I'm hoping to see how to, in theory, publish how bitcoin does BIP70 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0070.mediawiki
16:10:49 <Ian> Manu: +1 to bringing the proposal into the group
16:11:03 <Ian> ...there are issues with the content we can address once brought in
16:11:10 <dezell> +1 to bringing in the SEPA prop
16:11:11 <nick_tr> nick_tr has joined #wpwg
16:11:13 <Ian> ...this can help us learn to write payment method specs
16:11:14 <Ian> q-
16:11:16 <nick_tr> q?
16:11:20 <nick_tr> ack manu
16:11:20 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to provide feedback on SEPA Payment Method spec. and to +1 for another ubiquitous payment method example.
16:11:22 <Ian> +1 to taking Cyril's spec into the group
16:11:53 <nick_tr> q?
16:12:19 <nick_tr> q?
16:12:28 <MattS> q+
16:12:30 <AdrianHB> +1
16:12:39 <dlongley> +1
16:12:48 <ShaneM> +1
16:13:01 <Ian> MattS: A point I want to make in general - I have a number of pull requests on the basic card spec...some of those are general comments....
16:13:10 <Ian> ...I would like to get at least one "great examplar"
16:13:15 <adrianba> +1 to the idea of bringing it in without necessarily supporting the content so far
16:13:23 <nick_tr> q?
16:13:27 <nick_tr> ack mattS
16:13:28 <MattS> q-
16:13:30 <Ian> ....so suggest we hold off on getting further ones until we have a great exemplar
16:13:31 <Brian> Brian has joined #wpwg
16:13:44 <AdrianHB> +1 to Matt (volunteers to concentrate on the Basic Card Spec)
16:14:10 <manu> q+ to mention exemplar work
16:14:22 <Ian> Matt: I volunteer to edit; Cyril supports this
16:14:26 <Ian> +1 to MattS being an editor
16:14:30 <Ian> (with Cyril)
16:14:41 <nick_tr> q?
16:14:46 <dlongley> +1 to MattS + Cyril
16:15:46 <Ian> Manu: At some point we may have a payment method spec that explains how to write them
16:15:55 <Ian> (IJ thinks this is NOT a spec but rather a good practice doc)
16:16:13 <Ian> q+
16:16:15 <Ian> ack manu
16:16:15 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention exemplar work
16:16:44 <Ian> ack me
16:17:00 <Ian> IJ: -1 to a "spec" for payment method specs...rather just a live page that we can work on more easily
16:17:09 <manu> q+ to note that he's not convinced that there won't be conformance language for payment methods
16:17:24 <Ian> POINT OF ORDER: Let's move "payment specs" to another topic
16:17:27 <dveditz> dveditz has left #wpwg
16:17:38 <Ian> MattS: I propose also to be co-editor of the card spec
16:17:47 <manu> +1 to Matt becoming co-editor of card spec
16:17:51 <adrianba> i believe we chose not to merge those proposals because we didn't deem there to be consensus
16:17:52 <dlongley> +1 to MattS
16:18:02 <Ian> +1 to Matt as co-editor to card spec to help with harmonization
16:18:09 <Ian> nick_tr: Zack and Adrian, you ok with that?
16:18:18 <Ian> zach: I'm fine with it
16:18:21 <ShaneM> +1 to MattS
16:18:21 <adrianba> i have no objections to adding matt but i don't believe that this is due to lack of resources
16:18:58 <Ian> MattS: I'll work with the editors to get to consensus
16:19:25 <manu> q-
16:19:28 <manu> pull it in
16:19:31 <AdrianHB> +1
16:19:33 <manu> pull the SEPA spec in
16:19:33 <dlongley> +1
16:19:40 <Ian> RESOLVED: (1) Add MattS as co-editor to basic card spec (2) Take up the SEPA transfer spec with Cyril + MattS as editors
16:20:15 <Ian> Topic: New architecture spec
16:20:27 <Ian> AdrianHB: In issue 138 I restructured the content a bit
16:20:47 <Ian> ....I submitted a proposal for a new arch doc and I don't think we should spend time on the call today
16:20:54 <zkoch> Link to new arch. doc proposal?
16:20:54 <adrianba> q+
16:21:16 <manu> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/architecture/
16:21:33 <zkoch> thanks!
16:21:42 <Ian> adrianhb: I would like to discuss organization of specs
16:22:02 <nick_tr> q?
16:22:48 <Ian> adrianba: The original architecture spec I wrote up was intended to allow the browser api spec to proceed at a rate independent of other specs
16:22:58 <Ian> ...such as payment app registration or payment method specs
16:23:05 <Ian> ...the cornerstone is the payment method identifier spec
16:23:14 <Ian> ...most other docs would depend on it
16:23:39 <Ian> ..then there's a browser API that describes how to get from javascript in a web page to getting a response from an app and incorporates the mediation role.
16:23:55 <Ian> ...separately we talked about a registration spec that explains how you find applications that produce those responses.
16:23:59 <Ian> ...those can definitely proceed independently
16:24:20 <Ian> ...we put mediation role in that document as well
16:24:31 <Ian> adrianhb: that's a fair reflection of where we are today.
16:24:58 <Ian> ...we heard reservations ... Ian pulled in more architectural description in (in addition to spec relationships)
16:25:17 <Ian> ...my motivation behind my proposal is that there's a lot of confusion about mediator (and relation to user agent)
16:25:27 <Ian> ...and I wanted to emphasize that mediator and payment app are "roles"
16:25:40 <Ian> ...the new proposed architecture is renamed slightly to call this out
16:26:00 <Ian> ...it's also explicit that it's not an architecture for web payments, it's an architecture for processing payment requests.
16:26:08 <Ian> ...we don't make assertions about "what processing means"
16:26:33 <Ian> ...so the proposal is a description of roles and roughly how they work
16:26:44 <Ian> ...it also defines extension points
16:26:46 <nick_tr> q?
16:26:51 <manu> q+ to speak in favor of this new architecture document (and support it in lieu of the Payment Apps spec)
16:27:08 <Ian> ack adrian
16:27:47 <Ian> [AdrianHB continues to explain vision of organization of specs and roles]
16:28:39 <Ian> adrianhb: Arch doc explains what a payment method is...defers to the identifier spec for how to identify them.
16:28:42 <Ian> q+
16:28:45 <Ian> ack manu
16:28:45 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to speak in favor of this new architecture document (and support it in lieu of the Payment Apps spec)
16:28:54 <Ian> manu: +1 to the new architecture document
16:29:07 <Ian> ...I like it a lot..it was what I was expecting in an architecture document.
16:29:14 <Ian> ..it's the right direction even if I don't agree with all the content.
16:29:30 <Ian> ..there's also a payment registration spec.
16:29:34 <Ian> ...would this document replace that one?
16:29:59 <Ian> adrianhb: The payment app spec will able about what they do and how you register them (things not yet addressed)
16:30:12 <Ian> ..I don't believe that structure (of that doc) is currently correct.
16:30:20 <Ian> ...I think the content may be split out into 3 places:
16:30:26 <Ian>  - A "manifest" specification
16:30:46 <Ian>  - For parts of payment app, yes pull into the architecture spec
16:30:57 <Ian>  - Then registration is a third topic and there's not yet agreement in the group where that should sit
16:31:07 <Ian> ...I think that registration is a function of mediator
16:31:15 <manu> q+ to agree w/ splitting out Payment Apps spec into different places - assumption is request for payment apps proposal is withdrawn and should be removed from proposals.
16:31:16 <dlongley> +1 to new architecture doc and idea of core abstract specs that API specs depend on ... also need a core messages spec that describes data model for payment requests and responses, how to extend, + some syntaxes (JSON) ... manu has submitted this doc as a proposal.
16:31:55 <Ian> adrianhb: Too early to get consensus on the arch doc
16:31:58 <Ian> ...let's defer decision on that
16:32:11 <Ian> ..what we need to discuss is whether to mention registration in the browser API spec
16:32:16 <adrianba> q+
16:32:20 <Ian> ack me
16:32:22 <manu> q+ to discuss HTTP API first before we do registration()
16:32:33 <adrianba> q-
16:33:15 <Andrew> Andrew has joined #wpwg
16:33:16 <Ian> IJ: I am hearing proponent withdraw 2 proposals today ...for discussion at a future call
16:33:32 <Ian> manu: +1 to splitting out payment app specs
16:33:34 <manu> ack manu
16:33:34 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree w/ splitting out Payment Apps spec into different places - assumption is request for payment apps proposal is withdrawn and should be removed from
16:33:38 <Zakim> ... proposals. and to discuss HTTP API first before we do registration()
16:33:41 <nick_tr> q?
16:33:54 <Ian> Topic: HTTP API proposal
16:33:59 <Ian> https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/web-payments-http-api/
16:34:22 <Ian> Manu: Ian has reviewed the spec
16:34:29 <manu> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/web-payments-http-api/
16:34:32 <Ian> ..I've incorporated his comments
16:34:33 <Ian> q+
16:34:55 <Ian> Manu: HTTP API is a way of registering a payment app through an HTTP client
16:34:57 <Ian> ..and of initiating a payment
16:35:08 <Ian> ....sending the payment request to a payment app and getting a response
16:35:15 <Ian> ..and returning a response
16:35:25 <Ian> ...the spec is incomplete ... wanted to get a straw man on the table
16:36:00 <Ian> IJ: Have others read the spec?
16:36:01 <manu> Ian: My first question to the group - have other people read the spec?
16:36:02 <ShaneM> I have read the spec
16:36:07 <Ian> AdrianHB: Yes
16:36:18 <Ian> nick_tr: read an earlier iteration; haven't read most recent version
16:36:20 <zkoch> Yes, but not updated version
16:36:25 <adrianba> yes
16:36:57 <ShaneM> publishing?
16:37:06 <manu> Ian: I have read it and have a bunch of questions - there are things it's doing today that we're working on in other places. It strikes me both that publishing it with that content would create confusion and possibly dilute the effort to resolve some of these things that we want to be common across all of these things?
16:37:21 <manu> Ian: I mean, taking on this work
16:38:22 <nick_tr> q?
16:38:25 <manu> Ian: Secondly, I think for the things that an HTTP API spec should do, it doesn't do enough of those things. I also have an outstanding email regarding use cases asking to clarify the situation in which it would be employed. Even though it's only a question of taking it up - taking it up in it's current form overlaps with other stuff we're taking on. We should reduce it to a web services specification and drop the bits we're working on in other specs in the group.
16:38:26 <nick_tr> ack Ian
16:38:30 <manu> q+ to respond
16:38:31 <AdrianHB> q+ to suggest working with Manu on this
16:38:44 <nick_tr> ack manu
16:38:44 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond
16:39:05 <Ian> IJ: I gave detailed suggestions in my email
16:39:17 <Ian> Manu: the spec as written now tries to give someone a clear idea of request and response
16:39:27 <Ian> ..I don't think that classifying as a "web service" specification is the right direction
16:39:31 <Ian> ...let me get back to your email
16:39:51 <Ian> q+
16:39:57 <nick_tr> q?
16:40:08 <Ian> MY concern is that this content, unlike the SEPA spec, overlaps with other specs and that's the concern
16:40:31 <Ian> Manu: There is content in there that would help someone build an HTTP client
16:40:42 <Ian> adrianHB:I  think I see where IJ is coming from but maybe a separate call would be useful
16:40:54 <Ian> ...on the back of the fact that there's a new arch proposal
16:41:06 <Ian> ...perhaps there's an opportunity for AHB and Manu to spend this week on looking at how to get these two docs to work together
16:41:09 <manu> q+ to say he's happy to work with AdrianHB on how these two documents align.
16:41:13 <manu> ack AdrianHB
16:41:13 <Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest working with Manu on this
16:41:21 <nick_tr> ?
16:41:23 <nick_tr> q?
16:41:27 <Ian> ...and the HTTP spec would define how to build clients that fulfill the role
16:41:29 <Ian> roles
16:41:34 <Ian> and fill in the gaps
16:41:45 <Ian> ack me
16:42:12 <Ian> nick_tr: I hear that there's a proposal from Manu to take up the work, concern from Ian, and offer from AHB to work with Manu to align the emerging specs
16:42:53 <manu> Ian: I think, while the content, not the timing is the concern at this point.
16:44:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpwg
16:44:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/21-wpwg-irc
16:44:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wpwg
16:44:22 <Ian> rrsagent, make minutes
16:44:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/21-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
16:44:25 <Ian> rrsagent, set logs member
16:44:43 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #wpwg
16:44:55 <Ian> Manu: I disagree the group agreed to take up the work in June. The idea was to aim for a FPWD in June.
16:45:08 <Ian> ...even if we said that, there's a member who wants to work on it
16:45:17 <Ian> Manu: +1 to working with AHB to alignment
16:45:30 <Ian> ..I can see how HTTP fits in
16:45:38 <Ian> rrsagent, make minutes
16:45:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/21-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
16:46:03 <nicktr> nicktr has joined #wpwg
16:46:03 <dwim_> dwim_ has joined #wpwg
16:46:05 <collier-matthew> collier-matthew has joined #wpwg
16:46:08 <davidillsley> davidillsley has joined #wpwg
16:46:09 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #wpwg
16:46:10 <AdrianHB> AdrianHB has joined #wpwg
16:46:10 <Ian> nicktr: Are you ok to take proposal off the table Manu?
16:46:11 <MattS> MattS has joined #wpwg
16:46:12 <alyver> alyver has joined #wpwg
16:46:13 <mkwst> mkwst has joined #wpwg
16:46:14 <slightlyoff> slightlyoff has joined #wpwg
16:46:19 <zkoch> zkoch has joined #wpwg
16:46:29 <nicktr> q?
16:46:30 <zkoch> OK, back
16:46:32 <Ian> Manu: I'd like to hear more opinions.
16:46:39 <AdrianHB> q?
16:46:42 <manu> manu has joined #wpwg
16:46:52 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #wpwg
16:47:08 <dezell> dezell has joined #wpwg
16:47:33 <dlongley> dlongley has joined #wpwg
16:47:33 <nicktr> q?
16:47:52 <ChristopherA> ChristopherA has joined #wpwg
16:48:03 <ChristopherA> Finally back in. took a long time.
16:48:04 <Ian> IJ: My summary is that (1) content risks confusion (2) not urgent given previous decision re: June FPWD (3) want more people to weigh in
16:48:12 <Mike5> Mike5 has joined #wpwg
16:48:28 <dlehn> dlehn has joined #wpwg
16:48:59 <dlongley> q+ -1 to postponing
16:49:13 <Ian> IJ: I suggest 5 May for considering proposal (so that we have time to review)
16:49:21 <AdrianHB> ack -1
16:49:21 <Zakim> -1, you wanted to postponing
16:49:44 <dlongley> is Ian the only one who finds it controversial?
16:49:59 <ShaneM> zakim, agenda?
16:49:59 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
16:50:17 <zkoch> I’d like more time to review and write down some comments/concerns on the HTTP API. I like the 5 May deadline to do that.
16:50:22 <Ian> nicktr: I would like to revisit this next week
16:50:43 <Ian> ..it will only work if people on the call commit to review both specs ahead of next week.
16:50:49 <Ian> (When will they be available? )
16:50:55 <ShaneM> I am happy to re-review the documents in time for next week.
16:51:00 <zkoch> I’d rather we spend more time on next week’s call resolving issue around PaymentRequest
16:51:09 <Ian> (IJ: +1 to doing issues next week)
16:51:09 <dlongley> if we're going to delay another week for people to read, then those people should take actions to review
16:51:15 <Ian> topic: Payment app registration
16:51:37 <Ian> AdrianHB: Propose to take off the table today...but the question is whether there should be content in the browser API spec about how to register payment apps.
16:51:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpwg
16:51:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/21-wpwg-irc
16:52:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wpwg
16:52:08 <Ian> rrsagent, make minutes
16:52:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/21-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
16:52:19 <maheshk> maheshk has joined #wpwg
16:52:19 <Ian> adrianhb: Any views on whether content on registration in the browser API spec?
16:52:23 <zkoch> q+
16:52:27 <Ian> ack zk
16:52:30 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #wpwg
16:52:33 <rouslan> rouslan has joined #wpwg
16:52:49 <Ian> zkoch: I think there should be a reference to it...we need to talk about registration "a bit" in the API spec,
16:53:00 <Ian> but all the details of payment app registration should be written in a separate spec
16:53:07 <nicktr> q?
16:53:12 <Ian> adrianhb: Why is that?
16:53:17 <Ian> q+
16:53:38 <Ian> zkoch: I see the browser Api spec as focused purely on how to request payment in the browser
16:53:44 <Ian> ..how do I request payment and get a response
16:53:55 <Ian> ...how you register payment app is separate from that
16:54:02 <AdrianHB> q+
16:54:02 <Ian> ...payment app registration is an orthogonal topic
16:54:13 <ShaneM> q+ to say that having registration in another spec is fine, but would object to the browser payment request api going to rec before the registration spec.
16:54:21 <adrianba>  +1 to zkoch
16:54:43 <manu> Ian: One of the thoughts that occurred to me reading the HTTP API spec, if I understood the flow correctly, some entity would kick off a payment if someone sends off a payment request somewhere.
16:55:05 <manu> Ian: The same user selection of the payment app would happen - therefore, we were talking about similar topics - how does a payment app declares what it supports?
16:55:32 <Andrew> Andrew has joined #wpwg
16:55:51 <manu> Ian: How does it tell that entity what it can do - if we have those two APIs... the registration is a binding - don't know if registration is very close and should be in the browser.
16:56:13 <dlongley> q+ to ask if the payment request API would depend on the payment registration spec
16:56:21 <manu> Ian: The fact that a payment app can declare it's capabilities suggest that it does belong outside either one of those APIs, that's the inclination that it has, don't know that about registration yet.
16:56:30 <Ian> s/know that/know enough/
16:56:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpwg
16:56:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/21-wpwg-irc
16:57:07 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wpwg
16:57:11 <Ian> adrianhb: there will be lots of ways that registration can occur
16:57:13 <Ian> ...e.g., with a browser as extensions
16:57:15 <Ian> ...or through the underlying platform
16:57:19 <Ian> ...and I don't think it's our place to define how these various platform independent things happen
16:57:27 <Ian> ...however I think that we are the custodians of what happens on the web platform
16:57:39 <Ian> ..and so we should at a minimum provide guidance for how it happens on the web
16:57:45 <dlongley> +1 to AdrianHB
16:57:55 <Ian> ...so that includes registration of payment apps with browsers and also how payment request gets to web based payment app
16:58:09 <Ian> ...I still am not sure why you would want to put that in a separate document
16:58:19 <Ian> ..if you don't talk about how to register payment apps, it's an incomplete picture
16:58:33 <ShaneM> q+ to note that having it in a separate spec has the advantage of clear conformance requirements for a payment app.
16:58:35 <Ian> ...it doesn't make sense to me to split it out
16:58:40 <nicktr> q?
16:58:43 <Ian> ack sh
16:58:43 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to note that having it in a separate spec has the advantage of clear conformance requirements for a payment app.
16:58:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/21-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
16:59:09 <Ian> ShaneM: I don't mind having it in a separate spec...I think it helps with conformance and testing
16:59:21 <Ian> ..but I would object if the paymentRequest API spec before the payment app spec went to rec
16:59:22 <Andrew> +1 to a consolidated spec
16:59:26 <Ian> ...they need to be done together.
16:59:46 <manu> q+ to mention why he's concerned about having a registration spec that lags REC for payment API
16:59:53 <manu> q-
17:00:06 <Ian> Topic: Face-to-face meeting
17:00:14 <Ian> nicktr: Blockchain workshop is going to be announced in June
17:00:24 <Ian> ...given interest from this WG, we are looking to move our FTF meeting into July
17:00:30 <ChristopherA> Please not too near IETF
17:00:30 <Ian> ...I am looking into logistics
17:00:41 <Ian> https://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html
17:00:46 <Ian> July 17-22, 2016
17:00:46 <Ian> Host: Juniper Networks
17:00:46 <Ian> Location: Berlin, Germany
17:00:52 <shepazu> (sorry about the workshop timing, folks :( )
17:00:57 <Ian> nicktr: I will proposed dates to the WG
17:01:04 <shepazu> https://www.w3.org/2016/04/blockchain-workshop/
17:01:22 <ChristopherA> If it was end of week before that might work, do both trips together.
17:02:41 <AdrianHB> +1 ChristopherA
17:02:59 <zkoch> zkoch has left #wpwg
17:03:07 <AdrianHB> you did
17:03:18 <Ian> topic: next meeting
17:03:20 <Ian> 28 April
17:03:29 <Ian> adrianHB: Will include proposals and also issues
17:03:45 <Brian> Brian has joined #wpwg
17:03:46 <Ian> (IJ: I would like to focus on issues and move proposals to 5 may so that we have time to review them)
17:03:49 <Ian> rrsagent, make minutes
17:03:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/21-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
17:03:51 <Ian> rrsagent, set logs public
17:04:14 <alyver> alyver has left #wpwg
17:04:38 <AdrianHB> @Ian: let's discuss. Based on feedback from editors of proposals that may be fine if there is enough review happening online
17:04:54 <Ian> rrsagent, bye
17:04:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items