13:39:43 RRSAgent has joined #wpwg 13:39:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/04-wpwg-irc 13:39:45 Zakim has joined #wpwg 13:39:55 Meeting: Web Payments Working Group 13:40:56 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170504 13:41:01 Chair: NickTR 13:41:03 Scribe: Ian 13:58:10 present+ 13:59:20 AdrianHB has joined #wpwg 14:00:42 Max has joined #WPWG 14:00:52 what is the meeting password to join the webex? 14:01:00 cweiss has joined #wpwg 14:01:05 MattS has joined #wpwg 14:01:26 alyver has joined #wpwg 14:01:36 present+ Max 14:01:40 present+ Anne 14:01:41 present+ AdrianHB 14:03:24 present+ Christian 14:03:30 present+ vkuntz 14:03:31 present +alyver 14:03:37 present+ alyver 14:03:46 present+ Emile 14:03:51 present+ alyver 14:03:56 present+ mattsaxon 14:04:00 present+ oyiptong 14:04:25 present+ NickTR 14:04:46 present+ 14:05:08 present+ 14:05:19 zkoch has joined #wpwg 14:05:22 present+ 14:05:40 Topic: Editor update from PR API 14:05:45 Ian has changed the topic to: Agenda https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170504 14:06:12 zkoch: Lots of pull requests happening. 14:06:19 ..Adrian and Marcos met yesterday (I could not make it) 14:06:22 ...I will sync up later today 14:06:33 ...I think we are making steady progress on issues 14:06:44 Pull requests => https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pulls 14:06:57 molly has joined #wpwg 14:06:57 AdrianHB: How close to CfC? 14:07:00 kuntzv has joined #wpwg 14:07:10 present+ 14:07:11 zkoch: Not yet there; there's an issue that we are tracking related to things needed to do to get to CR 14:07:18 ...we are not done with core issues to get to CR 14:08:10 https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/523 14:08:16 ^^^^ 14:08:24 adrianHB: That's the pull request re: going to CR 14:08:52 topic: Payment Handler Call for Consensus 14:08:52 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017May/0011.html 14:09:08 Ian: we sent email around looking for response by 11 May 14:09:09 PLEASE RESPOND to the proposal by 11 May 2017 (10am ET). 14:09:37 ... btw f2f and cfc the editors resolved some easy issues and put markers in for the open ones and some respec cleanup 14:09:48 ... not much substantive change since f2f 14:10:07 q? 14:10:08 NickTR: Any questions? 14:10:10 (None) 14:10:20 Topic; 14:10:20 Topic: 14:10:20 Implementing (Short-string) Payment Methods in the Browser 14:10:30 topic: Implementing (Short-String) Payment Methods in the browser 14:10:44 AdrianHB: The question has come up incidentally a few times. 14:10:45 zakim, who is here? 14:10:45 Present: Ian, Max, Anne, AdrianHB, Christian, vkuntz, alyver, Emile, mattsaxon, oyiptong, NickTR, zkoch, kuntzv 14:10:47 Ken has joined #wpwg 14:10:48 On IRC I see kuntzv, molly, zkoch, alyver, MattS, cweiss, Max, AdrianHB, Zakim, RRSAgent, CarmenSpitz, ShaneM, dlehn, hober, manu, trackbot, dlongley, schuki, Ian, mkwst, Dongwoo, 14:10:48 ... davidillsley_, slightlyoff, adrianba, oyiptong, nicktr, emschwartz, JakeA 14:11:10 AdrianHB: What does it mean to implement a short-string payment method in the browser. 14:11:29 ...I think that basic-card is special in that the browser responds to the payment request 14:11:39 ...but for other payment methods, what is the implementation expectation? 14:12:07 q? 14:12:15 q+ 14:12:21 q+ 14:12:25 q- 14:12:31 q? 14:12:44 NickTR: does this problem go away if we don't use short strings? Are they "treated" differently? 14:12:49 ack zkoch 14:13:26 zkoch: We view URLs as completely open. We don't do any (extra spec) validations 14:13:45 ...but for short strings we are more intentional 14:13:51 ..we do have an enum in chrome 14:14:01 ..it's easily updatable but does require an update. 14:14:07 ...this came up in the editor call 2 weeks ago 14:14:47 ...firefox, edge, and FB were in agreement that user agents should be thoughtful on implementation of these short strings 14:15:01 ...URLs don't require the same level of control because of existing domain name system 14:15:11 q+ to ask about validation of data 14:15:26 ...short strings may come from W3C but are not required to 14:15:28 ack Ad 14:15:28 AdrianHB, you wanted to ask about validation of data 14:16:16 q? 14:16:20 zkoch: We don't do data validation 14:16:32 AdrianHB: Why are we defining it as WebIDL instead of JSON? 14:16:53 ...should we switch to something less rigid? 14:17:08 Q? 14:17:09 ...or make a note that there is no validation of data. 14:18:01 q? 14:18:13 IJ: Is the use of WEbIDL an assertion about browser validation of data? I was not aware of that. 14:19:06 AdrianHB: Maybe we need a cautionary statement that the browser does not validate the shape of the data 14:20:05 rouslan_ has joined #wpwg 14:20:09 IJ: I suggest we don't spend more time here, but welcome a PR with a cautionary note. 14:20:29 AdrianHB: This WebIDL does not represent anything in the DOM. Therefore doesn't seem like it should be in WebIDL 14:20:36 present+ 14:21:40 AdrianHB: I will log an issue with some more detail on this. 14:22:16 topic: Basic Card to Rec or Note? 14:22:31 See request from Marcos => https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-methods-card/issues/27#issuecomment-298289630 14:23:17 q+ 14:23:37 q+ to explain my comment in the agenda 14:23:43 IJ: Going to Rec would trigger patent policy and exclusion period and min 150 days 14:24:22 adrianba: It was not the case that my view was that these should be Notes. I think there was discussion early on about what should be a Rec and what should not. It seemed like there was consensus in the room in London that we should plan to progress Basic Card as a Note. 14:24:30 ...I thought that was a reasonable position 14:24:42 ...I also would highlight what Ian said, though. 14:25:09 ...a concern might be with some participants in the group, whether someone could make an argument that in order to fully support basic card end to end, that some IP would be implicated as an essential requirements 14:25:25 ...that people had not originally planned would be part of the scope of the work of this group 14:25:32 Emile has joined #wpwg 14:25:47 ...an assumption may have been that IP for processing cards would not be in scope 14:26:10 ...I am comfortable with the decision to go to Note. I don't see a strong need to go to Rec 14:26:23 ...I think we should think carefully before we make that change. 14:26:26 q? 14:26:27 q? 14:26:29 ack adrianba 14:26:35 ack AdrianHB 14:26:35 AdrianHB, you wanted to explain my comment in the agenda 14:27:24 AdrianHB: I think I understand Marcos' comments on the thread as saying "we will be generating things from the IDL" and so this should be a Rec 14:27:42 q+ 14:27:51 ...I think one way to deal with this is to say that the WebIDL is only meant to describe the data 14:28:10 q+ to ask what the consequences would be to take short-strings out of the normative text 14:28:19 ack adrianba 14:28:37 q? 14:28:44 adrianba: I don't think there's any part of the process that requires that WebIDL be in a Recommendation rather than a Note. 14:28:55 ...it is true that in general we create recs for things that have binding IP commitments. 14:29:36 nick: I have been uncomfortable with short strings 14:29:49 ...is there another way to indicate that this is a bridging technology? 14:29:57 ...should short-string construct be removed from normative context? 14:29:58 q+ 14:30:00 ack nick 14:30:00 nicktr, you wanted to ask what the consequences would be to take short-strings out of the normative text 14:30:04 q+ 14:30:10 ack q? 14:30:10 q+ 14:30:17 ack Ian 14:30:22 zkoch has joined #wpwg 14:30:32 q- 14:31:58 ian: I think we're confalting the need to be rec track with the making shrot strings informative 14:32:10 ... -1 to making short strings informative 14:32:28 ack rouslan_ 14:32:28 ack rouslan_ 14:32:42 rouslan_: -1 to moving short strings to informative 14:32:51 AnneP has joined #wpwg 14:32:54 NickTR: My concern is people will migrate toward that instead of URLs 14:33:06 rouslan_: I think it's important that we keep short strings; not everyone can do URLs. 14:33:23 ..apparently interledger cannot do URLs for some reason and would prefer a short string 14:34:05 NickTR: Ian has thus counter-proposed that AdrianBa and Marcos discuss, so we won't close today 14:34:15 [AdrianBa agrees to that approach] 14:34:37 topic: Credit Transfer Next Steps 14:34:50 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017May/0001.html 14:35:10 IJ: Tokenization task force meets Tuesdays 14:35:25 ian: heads up. focus is on other work but don't want to lose focus on tokenization and credit transfer 14:35:43 ... some spec edits and some todos and nexts steps 14:35:53 ... thanks MattS for recent action 14:36:05 ... TF will come back to the WG with updates as available 14:36:08 q? 14:36:09 q? 14:37:28 Ken has joined #wpwg 14:38:01 Topic: Interledger Payment method spec 14:38:07 Draft spec: 14:38:08 https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/interledger-payment-method.html 14:38:15 q+ 14:38:17 adrianhb: The reason we don't want to use a URL - like the other specs, it's a payment without an authority behind it. 14:38:26 ...we have having a hackathon 14:38:34 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017May/0014.html 14:38:35 q? 14:38:40 ack MattS 14:38:51 mattS: I have no issues with the spec and your recommendation. 14:39:13 ...I hear a difference of opinion about short strings being a bridging mechanism and your position that they are for payment methods with no authorities behind them. 14:39:39 AdrianHB: Fair point. I see the short string as a tool available for people who have the issue raised in Lisbon - "we can't host a payment method manifest file" 14:39:52 q+ 14:39:54 ...I would say that basic-card the payment method is a bridging payment method 14:40:05 ..but I would not consider the short string mechanism overall to be for bridging 14:40:32 zkoch: I support short strings are bridging mechanisms, but there is also value in short strings. They map to openness. They are simple to implement (in browsers) 14:40:44 ...we accepted in the WG the burden to "deal with" these short string proposals 14:41:14 ...at first I pushed back on AdrianHB's proposal and suggested a Url, but I also recognized AHB's point that there are entities that don't have formal ownership by design. And so short strings are nice to have in our toolbox 14:41:40 ...I am not very concerned about this becoming a big problem or thinking of this only as a bridging mechanism. 14:41:49 q? 14:41:54 ack zk 14:41:55 ..I think that having them imply open by default will "weed out" the majority of requests. 14:41:56 ack zkoch 14:42:06 nicktr: My position on short strings is well known. 14:42:23 ...I will ask a different question...anyone else on the call who is interested in implementing inter ledger and thinks we should take up as a work item in the group? 14:43:18 IJ: I have not seen it yet and would like some time before responding to any question about taking up as a work item 14:43:48 NickTR: I propose that we send a separate note to the WG about the spec, and a time scale for considering it as a work item. 14:43:51 +1 14:43:54 +1 14:44:48 AdrianHB: It's useful to me to indicate some concerns about the short string process. Effectively being gatekeepers. 14:44:51 q+ 14:45:07 ack me 14:47:32 IJ: We are not global gatekeepers. People can approach browser vendors outside of W3C. 14:47:39 ...we have consensus process to make decisions. 14:48:04 AdrianHB: Don't want evaluation criteria to be made up. 14:48:17 if some browsers implement some short strings, but not others, then a merchant implementer cannot know whether to use or not - we get back into the old world of "if IE then else if navigator then..." 14:49:01 Strong +1 that the short strings process and the payment method publication process to be documented 14:49:45 IJ: I think it's fine to get experience and then set expectations. But healthy debate, people signing up to do things, people implementing, and being in scope for our charter are all good signs 14:50:04 AdrianHB: I am happy to figure out details as we go 14:50:37 AdrianHB: From what I've heard during today's call (from Zach) is simple though intentional. It think that we should consider "the amount of real work" of the WG as a consideration. 14:51:03 q+ 14:51:13 ...if one consideration for taking up the spec is "writing the spec" but another is "implementation by payment apps" that latter might happen outside the wg 14:51:16 ack matt 14:51:17 ack MattS 14:51:39 MattS: When we had discussion about identifiers was to use URNs. Any reason not to use those? 14:51:51 ...please remind me why we chose not to do that? 14:51:59 AdrianHB: Short strings don't have registration burden. 14:52:46 MattS: URN has registration process; avoids web server requirement 14:53:06 q+ 14:53:13 ack Ian 14:53:23 IJ to browser vendors: Do you implement URNs or just URLs? 14:54:02 zkoch: We'd probably throw an exception 14:54:15 adrianhb:I note that short strings themselves could be URNs. 14:54:28 the pmi is being written to expect https as the scheme 14:54:29 zkoch: A lot of people in Chrome pushed back on URNs 14:55:04 adrianhb: I am happy to close here, but would like to document expectations for short strings for PMIs. 14:55:08 nicktr: Strong +1 14:55:37 AdrianHB: I think we need to be specific about what the WG's requirements are to take up a new payment method identifier spec 14:56:17 IJ: I suggest we just use Call for Consensus, with expectation setting at most 14:56:21 my counter proposal would be that we should allow URNs (as part of the URL area) in addition to short-string, that would give a path away from browser registration of short-strings 14:56:59 ACTION: AdrianHB to send email to group about the inter ledger spec and expectation of CfC in 2 weeks 14:56:59 Created ACTION-56 - Send email to group about the inter ledger spec and expectation of cfc in 2 weeks [on Adrian Hope-Bailie - due 2017-05-11]. 14:57:08 q? 14:57:27 Topic: Next meeting 14:57:28 review this: https://github.com/w3c/payment-method-manifest 14:57:28 ! 14:57:29 11 May 14:57:29 :) 14:57:30 alyver has left #wpwg 14:57:34 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:57:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/04-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 14:57:42 RRSAgent, set logs public 14:57:54 AnneP has left #wpwg