15:01:51 RRSAgent has joined #wpwg 15:01:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/26-wpwg-irc 15:01:53 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:01:53 Zakim has joined #wpwg 15:01:55 Zakim, this will be 15:01:55 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:01:56 Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference 15:01:56 Date: 26 January 2017 15:02:10 present+ nicktr 15:02:10 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170126 15:02:18 Ian has changed the topic to: 26 Jan agenda => https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170126 15:02:21 Chair: NickTR 15:02:24 Scribe: Ian 15:02:45 present+ 15:02:59 present+ 15:03:07 present+ 15:03:13 present+ 15:03:18 present+ 15:03:26 present+ AdrianHB 15:04:05 Regrets today 15:04:11 regrets+ Olivier 15:04:18 agenda? 15:04:21 agenda+ PMIs 15:04:28 agenda+ Nick report from EMVCo meeting 15:04:31 agenda+ Basic Card 15:04:37 agenda+ Payment Method Manifest Spec 15:04:46 agenda+ PR API any issues need discussion? 15:04:50 agenda+ Test suite check-in 15:04:52 agenda+ Meetings 15:05:05 zakim, who's here? 15:05:05 Present: nicktr, adamR, Ian, rouslan, Max, pascal_bazin_, AdrianHB 15:05:07 On IRC I see RRSAgent, rouslan, pascal_bazin_, KayakAlan, mathp, betehess, stan, Max, collier-matthew, ShaneM, adamR, hober, schuki, oyiptong, nicktr, davidillsley_, manu, 15:05:07 ... AdrianHB, slightlyoff, mkwst, hyojin, JakeA, adrianba, emschwartz, Dongwoo, dlongley, dlehn, Ian, trackbot 15:05:20 present+ Roy 15:05:21 present+ Molly 15:05:23 present+ 15:05:24 present+ Alan 15:05:42 present+ 15:05:53 agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170126 15:06:06 zakim, take up item 1 15:06:07 agendum 1. "PMIs" taken up [from Ian] 15:06:22 PR: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers/pull/21/ 15:06:26 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers/pull/21/commits/6f4965e7bd760073557d5d5ec5aa8e05bf2f5ceb 15:06:52 AdrianHB: Reworded to say that the resource must be fetchable securely 15:06:58 ...allows some flexibility 15:07:08 New text: 15:07:09 +

When URIs are used for payment method identifiers they MUST be absolute URIs including only the schema, authority, and path parts. The URI must be usable as a locator, (a URL) such that user agents are able to locate and fetch the payment method manifest identified by the URI. The URI scheme MUST support fecthing the resource in a secure manner (e.g. https). These URLs MUST NOT include query string parameters or fragment identifiers.

15:07:24 dezell has joined #wpwg 15:07:46 I’m okay with this change. 15:07:50 (IJ notes a typo) 15:07:53 regrets+ dezell 15:08:01 q? 15:08:06 q+ 15:08:41 notes a tiny nit: spelling of 'fetching' 15:08:46 MattS has joined #wpwg 15:08:47 q+ 15:09:03 IJ: Should we say UAs ignore query/fragment as more of a processing requirement? 15:09:32 AdrianHB: That bit could move as well to the section on matching 15:09:42 ack ian 15:09:49 ack rouslan 15:09:49 (Ian does not feel strongly about that particular change) 15:10:13 present+ MattS 15:10:39 rouslan: I suggest we preserve the original intent of requiring no fragment identifiers or query string. I suggest that the user agent ignore any URL that has a fragment / query string rather than ignoring the offending parts 15:10:49 ..that reduces the cost of parsing 15:11:02 ...browser can do a match on the URL and reject it if not well-formed 15:11:17 AdrianHB:I will refresh the PR based on these comments 15:11:38 +1 15:11:40 +1 15:11:48 (I also suggest merging your sentences 2 and 3) 15:11:50 Ian has left #wpwg 15:11:54 Ian has joined #wpwg 15:12:00 zakim, close item 1 15:12:00 agendum 1, PMIs, closed 15:12:02 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:12:02 2. Nick report from EMVCo meeting [from Ian] 15:12:03 zakim, take up item 2 15:12:03 agendum 2. "Nick report from EMVCo meeting" taken up [from Ian] 15:12:26 present+ ShaneM 15:12:31 nicktr: There is a new task force at EMVCo called "Secure remote commerce" 15:13:05 ...they are looking at how to do payments on the Web. The recognize the work we are doing her is important. 15:14:34 s/The recognize/They recognize/ 15:15:00 ...it would be good for the organizations to work together; there may be challenges (e.g., visibility of proceedings) 15:15:46 q+ 15:15:52 q- 15:16:16 Mike5 has joined #wpwg 15:16:50 ACTION: nicktr to work with Ian to help foster EMVCo/W3C formal relationshiop 15:16:50 Created ACTION-45 - Work with ian to help foster emvco/w3c formal relationshiop [on Nick Telford-Reed - due 2017-02-02]. 15:17:19 nicktr: I have volunteered to be the conduit in the short-term 15:18:52 nicktr: There's an EMVCo meeting just prior to the WPWG FTF meeting; good time for a sync-up 15:18:57 ...e.g., around tokenization and architecture 15:19:02 ...also payment apps 15:19:05 q? 15:20:35 nicktr: I came away from the conversation with EMVCo feeling positive. We will need to work through issues such as time scales for deliverables and communications mismatches 15:22:05 IJ: Please work to get review comments real soon now so we can discuss any important ones at the FTF meeting if necessary 15:22:16 q? 15:22:24 zakim, close item 2 15:22:24 agendum 2, Nick report from EMVCo meeting, closed 15:22:25 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:22:25 3. Basic Card [from Ian] 15:22:30 zakim, take up item 3 15:22:30 agendum 3. "Basic Card" taken up [from Ian] 15:23:12 nicktr: Regarding use of strings for network names (and EMVCo)...I would characterize the response as (1) this is not really for EMVCo, it's a question for the individual networks and (2) at least one short name there is not an EMVCo member 15:23:22 ...I've asked them to carry the question to their membership 15:23:33 Card Network Identifiers Approved for use with Payment Request API 15:23:37 https://www.w3.org/Payments/card-network-ids 15:24:30 IJ: W3M has committed to maintenance 15:25:26 PROPOSED: We adopt https://www.w3.org/Payments/card-network-ids for reference from Basic Card 15:25:28 +1 15:25:29 +1 15:25:45 IJ: Tokenization will also point to this list 15:26:07 RESOLVED: To reference https://www.w3.org/Payments/card-network-ids 15:26:09 ship it 15:26:38 zakim, close this item 15:26:38 agendum 3 closed 15:26:39 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:26:39 4. Payment Method Manifest Spec [from Ian] 15:26:44 zakim, take up item 6 15:26:44 agendum 6. "Test suite check-in" taken up [from Ian] 15:27:25 IJ: How is it going? Do we need more resources? 15:27:41 ShaneM: I have not made progress on this. 15:27:49 ..I expect to have more time in a week or so 15:28:12 Mike: There hasn't been anything happening with the test suite for a while 15:28:28 ...one of the reasons is that the mechanism we need to test requires that we do something more than we can do in JS 15:28:45 ...we need to emulate a payment transaction in a way that gives us a payment response that we can work with 15:28:58 ...we know there are ways to do this but somebody needs to put together something to do it 15:29:05 zakim, who's here? 15:29:05 Present: nicktr, adamR, Ian, rouslan, Max, pascal_bazin_, AdrianHB, Roy, Molly, mathp, Alan, stan, MattS, ShaneM 15:29:08 On IRC I see Mike5, Ian, MattS, dezell, Zakim, RRSAgent, rouslan, pascal_bazin_, KayakAlan, mathp, stan, Max, collier-matthew, ShaneM, adamR, hober, schuki, oyiptong, nicktr, 15:29:08 ... davidillsley_, manu, AdrianHB, slightlyoff, mkwst, hyojin, JakeA, adrianba, emschwartz, Dongwoo, dlongley, dlehn, trackbot 15:29:19 Mike5: So there's an opportunity for others to help out here. 15:29:26 present+ Mike5 15:29:42 Mike5: I can help people who want to get up to speed on how the test suite works (the JS part) 15:29:54 ...there is a python server built in 15:30:02 ..we built our test runner on top of that 15:30:10 ..the web server that serves the test suite locally 15:31:44 q+ to talk to the server-side python server stuff 15:32:03 ...we need someone with cycles 15:32:32 ack sh 15:32:32 ShaneM, you wanted to talk to the server-side python server stuff 15:33:35 q? 15:33:59 q? 15:34:20 Note that there is some infrastructure in place for providing the server-side activity. Web Annotations and ARIA both have nice server-side components that we can leverage. 15:34:45 There is also a Javascript component from Annotation testing that we could leverage to get a client-side payment thing started. 15:35:13 IJ: This is a call for help to develop the emulator 15:35:17 Roy: Please contact me 15:35:37 ACTION: Shane to work with Mike to reach out to Stan and Roy re: test suite help 15:35:37 Created ACTION-46 - Work with mike to reach out to stan and roy re: test suite help [on Shane McCarron - due 2017-02-02]. 15:36:03 zakim, close this item 15:36:03 agendum 6 closed 15:36:04 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:36:04 4. Payment Method Manifest Spec [from Ian] 15:36:06 zakim, take up item 4 15:36:06 agendum 4. "Payment Method Manifest Spec" taken up [from Ian] 15:36:12 Payment Method Manifest Specification 15:36:20 https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/Payment-Manifest-Proposal.html 15:36:51 q+ 15:36:55 Issue 19: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers/issues/19 15:37:03 IJ: How is it going re: HTTP Link headers? 15:37:04 ack rouslan 15:37:17 rouslan: We've looked into it. Looks easy and also well-supported 15:37:23 ...we can reuse the logic. 15:37:33 ...so we support the HTTP Link header appraoch 15:37:34 Yes - there is a lot of reliance on link headers at the W3C. 15:37:46 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers/issues/19#issuecomment-274484201 15:37:56 IJ: Any other implementer experience? 15:39:05 q+ to say I'd like us to allow content neg 15:39:09 ack AdrianHB 15:39:09 AdrianHB, you wanted to say I'd like us to allow content neg 15:39:11 IJ: Any more thoughts on "just do it one way" v. "cascade"? 15:39:16 IJ: Pros and cons to each 15:39:38 adrianHB: I feel like link headers we picked because it was easier to implement than Conneg 15:39:45 ..but I still think that conneg is the better way to do this 15:39:49 ...I think we should support it as well 15:39:53 -1 to conneg 15:39:57 q? 15:39:58 q+ 15:40:03 ack Ian 15:40:18 I feel like conneg is way way harder to get right than link headers. And link headers are ubiquitous. 15:40:55 Ian: I suggest we pick this one and get more implementation experience since it is supported and also architecturally fine 15:40:58 ...let's keep simple 15:41:03 AdrianHB: Ok to not complicate 15:41:18 nicktr: I am hearing consensus to move in the link header direction 15:41:31 PROPOSED: Resolve issue 19 with the solution of HTTP Link headers 15:41:35 betehess has joined #wpwg 15:41:59 [Checking in with Samsung] 15:42:11 Alan: the last time I spoke with Mahesh he felt the existing proposal was workable 15:42:49 IJ: Can we get Samsung to weigh in on this proposal by next meeting? 15:43:00 Alan: I will try to help get a decision 15:43:18 ACTION: Alan to try to get Samsung to weigh in on issue 19 for decision by 26 15:43:18 Created ACTION-47 - Try to get samsung to weigh in on issue 19 for decision by 26 [on Alan Marshall - due 2017-02-02]. 15:43:25 s/by 26/by next meeting 15:43:33 https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/Payment-Manifest-Proposal.html 15:44:41 q? 15:44:41 IJ: Can we hear from editors / implementers on plan for advancing this spec? 15:44:53 zakim, who's here? 15:44:53 Present: nicktr, adamR, Ian, rouslan, Max, pascal_bazin_, AdrianHB, Roy, Molly, mathp, Alan, stan, MattS, ShaneM, Mike5 15:44:54 q+ 15:44:55 On IRC I see betehess, Mike5, Ian, MattS, dezell, Zakim, RRSAgent, rouslan, pascal_bazin_, KayakAlan, mathp, stan, Max, collier-matthew, ShaneM, adamR, hober, schuki, oyiptong, 15:44:55 ... nicktr, davidillsley_, manu, AdrianHB, slightlyoff, mkwst, hyojin, JakeA, adrianba, emschwartz, Dongwoo, dlongley, dlehn, trackbot 15:45:01 ack Max 15:45:15 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:45:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/26-wpwg-minutes.html Mike5 15:45:24 Max: I think for the next step for this proposal, we can update it according to our discussions and to reflect changes 15:45:42 ...if there are any other people interested in the spec, please make suggestions 15:46:18 ...regarding the timeline, if we can get consensus on the direction of the proposal.... 15:47:22 IJ: How about work on the spec to get mature proposal in place by FTF? 15:47:23 Max: +1 15:47:41 ...would like to get WG support at meeting or soon after 15:48:22 IJ: Would you be willing to work with Zach to get a plan for next wek? 15:48:24 Max: +1 15:48:36 ACTION: Max to work with Zach on a plan for advancing Payment Method Manifest 15:48:36 Created ACTION-48 - Work with zach on a plan for advancing payment method manifest [on Dapeng Liu - due 2017-02-02]. 15:48:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/26-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 15:49:00 zakim, close this item 15:49:00 agendum 4 closed 15:49:01 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:49:01 5. PR API any issues need discussion? [from Ian] 15:49:03 zakim, take up item 5 15:49:03 agendum 5. "PR API any issues need discussion?" taken up [from Ian] 15:49:35 (For Nick): Any PR API issues we need to discuss? 15:49:59 AdrianHB: What about payment apps? 15:50:11 Topic: Payment Apps 15:50:31 AdrianHB: Marcos Caceres has written an alternative proposal and we are hashing it out in the payment app task force. 15:50:44 ...but part of Marcos' proposal affects PR API 15:51:31 ...we are going to discuss in the task force whether we think this is the right approach 15:51:48 q+ 15:51:50 ack me 15:52:19 q+ to comment 15:52:55 IJ: Despite short term chaos, I think this is all very good for the spec 15:53:07 ack Mike5 15:53:16 ...also "ordinary" to have this friction when small group encounters views from first-time readers 15:53:36 Mike5: I've read through the threads but I've not been involved as much in the payment app spec 15:54:12 ...in general I would say that I've worked with Marcos (and Jake but not as long)....I value their insights based on my experience with them 15:55:10 ...understand that disruption can create annoyance, but it's good to pay that cost early 15:55:12 Ian: +1 15:55:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/26-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 15:55:48 [Mike5 recounts similar experience with PR API] 15:56:26 Mike5: I agree with Marco's position to reuse Web platform primitives 15:56:39 q+ 15:56:43 ack mike 15:56:43 Mike, you wanted to comment 15:56:58 zakim, close the queue 15:56:59 ok, Ian, the speaker queue is closed 15:57:02 ack ad 15:57:12 ack adamR 15:57:40 adamR: Thanks, Mike. I wanted to point out that a lot of the changes that Marcos has proposed.....the reason we are taking in a particular direction has to do with feedback from merchants and payment providers 15:57:47 ...so we have to balance needs and web model 15:58:19 ...we are taking into account priority of constituencies as well 15:58:38 IJ: Our goal is to work it out and have something robust at the FTF meeting 15:59:08 Mike5: This is not about architectural purity. 15:59:42 topic: Next meeting 15:59:46 2 February 15:59:50 FTF meeting please register: 15:59:59 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/83744/wpwg-201703/ 16:00:15 thank you everyone 16:00:17 RRSagent, make minutes 16:00:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/26-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 16:00:20 RRSagent, set logs public 16:01:01 Mike5 has left #wpwg