13:33:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpwg
13:33:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/11-wpwg-irc
13:33:17 <manu> Regrets+ Manu
13:58:23 <alyver> alyver has joined #wpwg
13:59:36 <jyr> jyr has joined #wpwg
14:01:11 <AdrianHB> I pulled the link from that file: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m0eab1d01791556dc7bcc4350b8bb9220
14:01:12 <zkoch> zkoch has joined #wpwg
14:01:37 <jnormore> jnormore has joined #wpwg
14:01:51 <alyver> present+ alyver
14:02:15 <nicktr> nicktr has joined #wpwg
14:02:46 <Roy> Roy has joined #wpwg
14:07:48 <rouslan> rouslan has joined #wpwg
14:11:17 <Ian> hi all
14:11:20 <Ian> got it running
14:12:10 <ShaneM> present+ ShaneM
14:12:23 <zkoch> present+ zkoch
14:12:25 <adamR> present+ adamR
14:12:45 <nicktr> present+ nicktr
14:12:47 <dlongley> present+ dlongley
14:13:09 <jnormore> present+ jnormore
14:13:23 <AdrianHB> present+ adrianhb
14:13:58 <jyr> present+ jyr
14:14:26 <nicktr> agenda-> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160811
14:14:32 <Ian> present+ Ian
14:14:40 <rouslan> present+ Rouslan
14:14:57 <ShaneM> q+ to mention a mistake in that CfC
14:15:04 <Ian> agenda?
14:15:06 <Ian> rrsagent, pointer?
14:15:06 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/08/11-wpwg-irc#T14-15-06
14:15:13 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wpwg
14:15:20 <AdrianHB> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160811
14:15:28 <Ian> trackball, start meeting
14:15:31 <nicktr> q?
14:15:33 <Ian> trackbot, start meeting
14:15:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:15:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:15:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:15:38 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference
14:15:38 <trackbot> Date: 11 August 2016
14:15:50 <Ian> agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160811
14:15:55 <Ian> topic: CFC for two specs
14:16:00 <Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Aug/0064.html
14:16:31 <nicktr> q?
14:16:45 <Ian> scribe: Ian
14:16:50 <Ian> topic: Use of URNs for PMIs
14:16:54 <ShaneM> I note that Spec-Ops intends to do two implementations of the HTTP API.
14:17:16 <Ian> Proposal from AdamR: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Aug/0047.html
14:17:31 <Ian> AdamR: W3C can register a top-level namespace ....
14:17:37 <nicktr> q?
14:17:44 <Ian> ...need to explain how we will maintain registry /uniqueness of names in that namespace
14:18:06 <Ian> ...the proposal is that PMIs are URIs
14:18:10 <Ian> ...and W3C will use URNs
14:18:14 <Ian> ..and other people can use URLs.
14:18:16 <djackson> djackson has joined #wpwg
14:18:23 <Ian> NickTR: Or URNs, but not in the W3C namespace
14:18:28 <djackson> present+ djackson
14:18:57 <Ian> present+ Ian
14:19:30 <Ian> AdrianHB: There is a desire that URLs be usable for certain cases (e.g., payment method is proprietary)
14:19:51 <Ian> ...there are some cases where someone might want to dereference the URL
14:20:10 <alyver> alyver has joined #wpwg
14:20:16 <ShaneM> +1 to adding a task to define what is at the end of a URL if it IS a URL
14:20:24 <nicktr> q?
14:20:28 <zkoch> q+
14:20:36 <nicktr> ack zkoch
14:20:50 <Ian> IJ: Does "using URIs" work, Zach?
14:20:55 <Ian> zkoch: Yes, and we'll have a particular w3c namespace
14:21:05 <Ian> ...others can most easily go done the route of absolute URLs.
14:21:10 <Ian> ..it sounds like there's consensus on this
14:21:11 <Ian> q+
14:21:19 <Ian> ...I will be working with Roy on the explainer and the spec
14:21:21 <nicktr> q+ to ask about practicalities of the URNs
14:21:32 <nicktr> ack ian
14:22:46 <alyver> alyver has joined #wpwg
14:22:54 <Ian> IJ: I want to say out loud that the expectation is that w3c WG decide minting of names...and W3C needs to register the namespace.
14:22:54 <nicktr> ack nicktr
14:22:54 <Zakim> nicktr, you wanted to ask about practicalities of the URNs
14:23:25 <nicktr> q?
14:23:50 <Ian> AdrianHB: I hear consensus for the WG to use URNs
14:24:06 <zkoch> q+
14:24:35 <Ian> AdrianHB: +1 on W3C URNs and URLs
14:25:00 <Ian> zkoch: I hear consensus to put this in the PMI spec.
14:25:25 <Ian> ...there's a separate issue (not yet resolved) about filtering etc.
14:25:50 <Ian> AdrianHB: Yes; we are happy to use URNs and the format for identifiers; we have not yet gotten consensus on all the bits in the explainer
14:25:59 <Ian> IJ: Right, enthusiasm for the direction; waiting for next draft
14:26:18 <Ian> nicktr: So I am hearing consensus to use URNs minted by W3C WG..and others can use URIs.
14:26:23 <adrianba> seems like updating the PMI spec is fine
14:26:29 <zkoch> Yeah, so we’ll update PMI spec
14:26:30 <AdrianHB> +1 another rev of proposal addressing issues would be great
14:26:37 <zkoch> And then we’ll continue to work before editing thebasic card payments spec
14:26:46 <adrianba> +1
14:26:47 <zkoch> (and SEPA spec…etc)
14:27:06 <Ian> RESOLVE: WPWG will use URNs for PMIs that it mints. W3C will register a namespace for that. WPWG will decide how to allocate names to that namespace. Others may use URIs for PMIs.
14:27:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/11-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
14:27:21 <Roy> Does anyone else have trouble locating various specs as they move around between repos? Is there a static place/resource we have that links to all of them?
14:27:22 <nicktr> +1
14:27:38 <AdrianHB> roy: the README on the main repo
14:27:40 <zkoch> Roy: good starting point is: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments
14:27:54 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wikihttps://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki
14:27:55 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki
14:28:02 <AdrianHB> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments
14:28:09 <Roy> Perfect, thanks all!
14:28:35 <Ian> Topic: Security
14:29:24 <jyr> jyr has joined #wpwg
14:30:04 <Ian> AdamR: This was a copy-paste of the security review
14:30:11 <Ian> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w7ginyzNg-xZUmITK4vzcGUKB4gbMOAvlkWWaRtX14k/edit?pli=1#
14:30:18 <Ian> ...so not sure we need to walk through again since we did so in London.
14:30:30 <Ian> ...but now we have a way (in github) to walk through the suggestions
14:30:49 <Ian> IJ: Is the next step concrete text proposals?
14:31:17 <Ian> IJ: Should we convene or can anybody weigh in?
14:31:30 <Ian> AdamR: Welcome anybody who has an opinion to provide a proposal.
14:31:44 <Ian> ...might be a bit much for three of us to do all of them.
14:31:58 <Ian> ...I think Zach has some points on some of them and welcome him to add notes to github
14:32:03 <zkoch> Yep, can do :)
14:32:05 <nicktr> q?
14:32:10 <zkoch> previous
14:32:11 <zkoch> ack zk
14:32:20 <Ian> q+
14:32:43 <nicktr> q?
14:32:46 <nicktr> ack Ian
14:33:11 <CyrilV> CyrilV has joined #wpwg
14:33:20 <Ian> Action: AdamR will write a proposal about storing numbers (#2)
14:33:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Will write a proposal about storing numbers (#2) [on Adam Roach - due 2016-08-18].
14:33:27 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-methods-card/issues/2#issuecomment-238986060
14:33:43 <Ian> ...I think zach has comments on that one in particular....and I'd like the conversation to play out more before I craft text.
14:34:05 <Ian> Action: Ian to do a pass through the issues to pick a small number to work on
14:34:05 <trackbot> 'Ian' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., ijacobs, ijmad).
14:34:14 <nicktr> q?
14:34:48 <Ian> IJ: I heard from Cyril that BPCE is not in a position to do a security review
14:35:10 <Ian> NickTR: I will follow up with Amex on security review.
14:35:17 <Ian> ACTION: NickTR to follow up with Amex about security review of specs
14:35:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Follow up with amex about security review of specs [on Nick Telford-Reed - due 2016-08-18].
14:35:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/11-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
14:35:39 <Ian> What is our usage of security considerations? Volunteers to add to it?
14:35:43 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Security-and-Privacy-Considerations
14:38:21 <adamlake> adamlake has joined #wpwg
14:39:25 <ShaneM> Topic: Testing Progress
14:39:53 <nicktr> scribenick: nicktr
14:40:13 <nicktr> we discussed at F2F, we're setting up infrastructure to test components
14:40:48 <nicktr> shane: mike had stepped in and did some work on automating the payment request tests using WPT
14:40:55 <nicktr> ... couple of issues arising
14:41:18 <nicktr> mike: hook into harness to test webIDL conformance
14:41:32 <nicktr> ...drop in IDL blocks as text from spec, and call constructor
14:41:43 <nicktr> ...harness runs test automagically
14:41:53 <nicktr> ...obviates manual IDL testing
14:42:16 <nicktr> mike: WIP: copied over tests from Rouslan/chrome source tree
14:42:32 <nicktr> ...around behaviour of payment request
14:42:38 <nicktr> mike: two questions:
14:43:00 <nicktr> ...currency - any string should be accepted
14:43:12 <nicktr> ...but throwing an error
14:43:45 <nicktr> mike: not clear what spec is saying
14:44:05 <nicktr> ...MUST requirements without consequences in the spec
14:44:06 <adrianba> I made a start on some tests a long time ago here too: http://github.adrianba.net/paymentrequest-demo/tests/payment-tests.html
14:44:51 <nicktr> ...if we have other implementers, it's important that we have basic tests so that all can use
14:45:26 <nicktr> mike: nature of api requires user to click BUY button
14:45:37 <nicktr> ...which makes automation harder
14:45:53 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about test automation and message shape testing; fake payment app etc.
14:45:58 <nicktr> ...shane has stuff in pipeline to make it possible to do some other cool testing
14:46:10 <nicktr> ack ShaneM
14:46:10 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about test automation and message shape testing; fake payment app etc.
14:46:18 <nicktr> shane: great work, mike
14:46:29 <nicktr> ...number of test sounds impressive but much still to do
14:47:26 <nicktr> shane: clicking to initiates makes testing harder but some automation via selenium/webdriver possible as long as well-shaped interface
14:47:36 <nicktr> ...it is possible to automate this stuff
14:47:48 <nicktr> ...we provide the instrumentation to do this
14:48:24 <nicktr> shane: payment app is also tricky, and we'll need a strategy to deal with this
14:48:36 <nicktr> ...so we can cover payments, registration, messages
14:49:11 <nicktr> q?
14:49:42 <ShaneM> adrianba: are you cool with us taking advantage of those?
14:49:58 <adrianba> yes
14:50:39 <nicktr> nick: shane, can we get a plan for testing by 250816?
14:50:44 <nicktr> shane: yes, we can.
14:51:11 <nicktr> ian: adrianHB, can you review and merge the changes?
14:51:13 <ShaneM> NOTE: We might want to have an independent task force to drive testing; agenda topic for 25 August
14:51:32 <nicktr> adrianHB: can the editors give it a LGTM please?
14:52:00 <nicktr> Ian: some suggestion for more design rationale
14:52:14 <nicktr> Ian: Zach - there is more in the specification now
14:52:45 <jnormore> Example: https://github.com/jnormore/browser-payment-api/commit/34c72dfa7121e5a9e3cc98319d3caed2fb23429d from https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api/pull/21
14:52:47 <nicktr> Ian: how should we deal with changes that may be required in the payment request API
14:53:10 <nicktr> ...e.g. recommended app. might imply changes in the API
14:53:31 <nicktr> ...should we do in the payment request API? or in the app spec text?
14:53:37 <nicktr> q?
14:54:03 <nicktr> ...also stil working on our plan for TPAC
14:54:03 <AdrianHB> q+
14:54:06 <nicktr> q+
14:54:13 <nicktr> ack AdrianHB
14:54:29 <nicktr> adrianHB: I think we should change the relevant spec if we need to
14:54:49 <adamR> +1 to AdrianHB
14:54:52 <Roy> +1
14:54:54 <ShaneM> +1 to changing PaymentRequest as needed.  It is not set in stone.
14:54:54 <jnormore> +1
14:55:00 <nicktr> ...if there are things we can't do in apps without changes to the other specs then we should do that
14:55:01 <dlongley> +1
14:55:11 <nicktr> q?
14:55:13 <nicktr> q-
14:55:15 <nicktr> +1
14:55:20 <nicktr> q?
14:55:36 <ShaneM> q+ to ask about timing
14:55:53 <nicktr> q?
14:56:31 <ShaneM> ack ShaneM
14:56:31 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about timing
14:57:16 <nicktr> shane: impact of maturity of the spec
14:57:37 <nicktr> ...so changes would change tests
14:57:42 <AdrianHB> Not having payment apps means you can only test payment request for certain payment methods
14:57:49 <AdrianHB> (i.e. basic card)
14:57:54 <nicktr> ian: I don't understand
14:58:37 <nicktr> ian: I think we're in agreement - there's stuff we can't do without payment apps but we can prioritise other tests
14:58:44 <nicktr> shane: would you like a testing review
14:58:49 <nicktr> ian: noi
14:58:55 <nicktr> s/noi/no/
14:59:19 <ShaneM> Spec-Ops is committing to making a Payment App implementation (as part of the testing effort)
14:59:22 <nicktr> ian: difficult as there's no real-world browser to connect o
14:59:38 <nicktr> q?
15:00:22 <ShaneM> hmm.... got very quiet.  We may have ended...
15:01:05 <adrianba> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/11-wpwg-minutes.html adrianba
15:01:16 <adrianba> rrsagent, make logs public
15:05:50 <alyver> alyver has left #wpwg
16:06:35 <zkoch> zkoch has joined #wpwg
16:47:13 <nicktr_> nicktr_ has joined #wpwg
17:00:52 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has left #wpwg
17:03:04 <zkoch> zkoch has joined #wpwg
17:03:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wpwg
18:16:48 <adamlake> adamlake has joined #wpwg
18:54:33 <IanJacobs> IanJacobs has joined #wpwg
19:16:11 <Adam_> Adam_ has joined #wpwg
20:33:57 <Adam_> Adam_ has joined #wpwg
20:59:19 <adamR> adamR has joined #wpwg
21:40:53 <IanJacobs> IanJacobs has joined #wpwg
21:48:26 <adamR> adamR has joined #wpwg
23:55:55 <Adam_> Adam_ has joined #wpwg