14:01:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpwg
14:01:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/07/20-wpwg-irc
14:01:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:01:44 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wpwg
14:01:46 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:01:46 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:01:47 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference
14:01:47 <trackbot> Date: 20 July 2017
14:01:54 <Ian> Chair: AdrianHB
14:01:58 <Ian> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170720
14:02:13 <Ian> regrets+ NickTR
14:02:22 <Ian> present+
14:02:30 <Ian> present+ michelFoucault
14:02:33 <AdrianHB> AdrianHB has joined #wpwg
14:02:35 <Ian> present+ mweksler
14:02:38 <Ian> present+ dezell2
14:02:45 <adrianba> present+ adrianba
14:02:45 <Ian> present+ andras
14:03:01 <Ian> present+ Molly
14:03:54 <Ian> present+ zkoch
14:04:04 <zkoch> zkoch has joined #wpwg
14:04:08 <zkoch> present+
14:04:22 <Ian> agenda+ PR API / PMI CR
14:04:30 <Ian> agenda+ Payment Methods Good Practice
14:04:32 <Ian> present+ AdrianHBG
14:04:40 <AdrianHB> present+
14:04:40 <Ian> present+ PaymentHandler
14:04:50 <Ian> present+ Payment Method Manifest
14:04:57 <Ian> present+ Rechartering / TPAC
14:05:02 <Ian> agenda?
14:05:16 <Ian> agenda+ Payment Method Manifest
14:05:19 <Ian> agenda+ Payment Handler
14:05:24 <Ian> agenda+ Rechatering/TPAC
14:05:27 <Ian> zakim, take up item 1
14:05:27 <Zakim> agendum 1. "PR API / PMI CR" taken up [from Ian]
14:05:42 <Ian> (IJ: Call for consensus going well!)
14:06:00 <Ian> IJ PROPOSED: CR "comment period" end date of 2017-10-31 (pre-TPAC) for both specs.
14:06:07 <adrianba> this is only the minimum time
14:06:08 <AdrianHB> q?
14:06:33 <adrianba> so earlier is okay too
14:07:05 <Ian> IJ: I think not harmful to give extra time (since people traveling in the summer)
14:07:11 <AdrianHB> +1
14:07:13 <mweksler> +1
14:07:15 <dezell2> +1
14:07:23 <adrianba> +1
14:07:28 <zkoch> +1
14:07:35 <Ian> SO RESOLVED: Min CR review time is 31 Oct 2017
14:07:45 <Ian> ACTION: Editors to update both PMI and PR API with that "min review" date
14:07:46 <trackbot> Error finding 'Editors'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/track/users>.
14:07:58 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/blob/gh-pages/test-plan.md
14:08:46 <AdrianHB> ian: various people have been reaching out to get test resources. Contributions welcome from WG. Link is to page provided by Mike to help gather contributions
14:09:12 <AdrianHB> ... people should be able to clone the repo and then run the existing tests and writing new ones
14:09:43 <AdrianHB> ... we need to get sufficient coverage of the spec
14:10:00 <AdrianHB> ... Marcos is leading test suite dev project. Anyone who can contribute should contact him.
14:10:09 <AdrianHB> ... He is going to write up a process and share
14:10:50 <AdrianHB> ... We have also been talking to other testing companies. EG: PayCert have joined the WG
14:11:05 <AdrianHB> ... Ken has also introduced me to @@@ and @@@
14:11:20 <AdrianHB> ... To avoid overlapping work Marcos is coordinating
14:11:22 <Ian> s/@@@ and @@@/UL and FIME/
14:11:44 <Ian> IJ: the goal is to satisfy the Director that we have achieved interop per our CR exit criteria
14:11:49 <Ian> Topic: Basic Card
14:11:58 <Ian> AdrianHB: Basic Card not going to Note just yet.
14:12:32 <Ian> ...AdrianB made a good point that CR is an opportunity to get feedback, but "Note" implies done, so we'll continue to iterate until the other specs are further in the process
14:13:02 <zkoch> Nope :)
14:13:11 <Ian> Topic: CR Issues from Editors?
14:13:13 <Ian> zkoch: No
14:13:17 <Ian> adrianba: Don't think so
14:13:52 <AdrianHB> ian: [talks to himself a little]
14:13:58 <Ian> https://www.w3.org/2017/07/13-prapi-cr-trans-req.txt
14:14:06 <AdrianHB> ... I have begun to draft the transition request
14:14:26 <AdrianHB> ... all going well with CfC so we should have a decision by 25 July
14:14:49 <AdrianHB> ... at which point we present this request to the Director
14:14:49 <AdrianHB> ... I urge editors to review this
14:15:17 <AdrianHB> ... has been reviewed internally within W3M. Questions were raised about open issues
14:15:27 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen%20is%3Aissue%20-label%3A%22Priority%3A%20Postponed%22%20
14:15:39 <MattS> MattS has joined #wpwg
14:15:42 <AdrianHB> ... there are some open issues not marked as CR issues.
14:15:48 <adrianba> yes
14:15:54 <Ian> IJ: Can you editors confirm you are working to narrow that list?
14:15:55 <AdrianHB> ... editors, can you confirm you are addressing that
14:16:23 <Ian> {No other PR API comments}
14:16:26 <Ian> zakim, close item 1
14:16:26 <Zakim> agendum 1, PR API / PMI CR, closed
14:16:27 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:16:27 <Zakim> 2. Payment Methods Good Practice [from Ian]
14:16:29 <Ian> zakim, take up item 2
14:16:29 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Payment Methods Good Practice" taken up [from Ian]
14:16:36 <Ian> https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/method-practice/
14:17:04 <Ian> PMI refers to it informatively
14:17:21 <AdrianHB> ian: PMGP document is stuff moved from other specs. Some support for taking this up in the WG so want to pursue. Also now an informative ref from PMI spec.
14:17:33 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/payment-request-info
14:17:51 <rouslan> rouslan has joined #wpwg
14:18:01 <AdrianHB> ... asked if we should publish as not but suggestion from chairs was to publish in developer portal
14:18:04 <rouslan> present+ Rouslan
14:18:18 <AdrianHB> ... less visible that way but easier to maintain
14:18:32 <Ian> IJ: Any pref - Note or dev portal?
14:18:56 <zkoch> he’s fading :)
14:19:30 <Ian> AdrianHB: Please type "Note" or "Portal" with your preference
14:19:33 <AdrianHB> Dev portal
14:19:45 <zkoch> Portal
14:19:58 <Ian> Ian: Neutral
14:20:45 <Ian> present+ MattS
14:20:53 <Ian> present+ WonsukLee
14:20:55 <AdrianHB> PROPOSAL: Pick up the Payment Methods Good Practice document as a WG work item and publish in the portal
14:21:25 <MattS> My vote is to start with a single note in the Portal! And then add functionality as needed
14:21:42 <AdrianHB> +1
14:21:52 <Ian> zkoch: +1
14:21:56 <adrianba> +1 but that isn't volunteering
14:21:58 <Ian> +1
14:22:02 <MattS> +1
14:22:13 <Ian> RESOLVED: Move payment method good practice to the developer portal
14:22:28 <zkoch> ill add to my todo to review
14:22:44 <Ian> ACTION: Ian to move the payment method good practice to the dev portal
14:22:44 <trackbot> 'Ian' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., IFSF-EFT-WG-Lead, ijacobs, ijmad).
14:22:49 <Ian> zakim, close item 2
14:22:49 <Zakim> agendum 2, Payment Methods Good Practice, closed
14:22:50 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:22:50 <Zakim> 3. Payment Method Manifest [from Ian]
14:22:53 <Ian> zakim, take up item 3
14:22:53 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Payment Method Manifest" taken up [from Ian]
14:23:00 <Ian> https://w3c.github.io/payment-method-manifest/
14:23:30 <Ian> IJ: I think this is being used!
14:23:39 <Ian> zkoch: Google is using this. Next chrome version will leverage this.
14:23:49 <Ian> IJ: What needs to happen to get to CfC for FPWD?
14:23:54 <Ian> zkoch: Cleanup + prep for CfC
14:24:09 <Ian> Ian: I volunteer to review it (and may suggest edits to turn it into a WD-like doc).
14:24:15 <adrianba> seems like the scope is set - we should move to FPWD asap
14:24:19 <Ian> zkoch: This is like web manifest, and we've updated web manifest for our needs
14:24:23 <adrianba> doesn't have to be "done" to do so
14:24:53 <AdrianHB> +1
14:25:02 <Ian> IJ: +1 to getting to CfC soon
14:25:06 <Ian> IJ: Any other reviewers?
14:25:36 <Ian> IJ: any other parties in the WG making use of it?
14:25:46 <Ian> ...would make good reviewers
14:25:52 <Ian> zkoch: I suggest sending an email
14:25:58 <adrianba> we'll take another look
14:26:06 <Ian> adrianhb: We can still get feedback from non-WG people as well
14:27:07 <Ian> IJ: What is good timing for CfC from editor perspective? Are things changing?
14:27:24 <Ian> zkoch: Need to update some links, but I think we are ready to go
14:28:21 <adrianba> suggest 1 week for pre-fpwd comments, then prepare for publication, then CfC for 1 week, then publish
14:28:37 <Ian> IJ: +1 to that calendar
14:29:25 <Ian> zakim, close this item
14:29:25 <Zakim> agendum 3 closed
14:29:26 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:29:26 <Zakim> 4. Payment Handler [from Ian]
14:29:34 <Ian> zakim, take up item 4
14:29:34 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Payment Handler" taken up [from Ian]
14:29:59 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/issues/153
14:30:14 <Ian> https://w3c.github.io/payment-handler/
14:30:16 <Ian> q?
14:30:45 <Ian> https://w3c.github.io/payment-handler/#structure-of-a-web-payment-app
14:31:21 <Ian> Three use cases drove wallet concept:
14:31:22 <Ian>     Multiple user profiles with a single provider (e.g., business wallet vs personal wallet). (One company that provides tax services expressed interest in this feature.)
14:31:22 <Ian>     White label wallets - one origin provides wallet services for multiple vendors.
14:31:22 <Ian>     Multiple instruments held with a single provider
14:33:09 <Ian> q?
14:33:19 <zkoch> q+
14:33:22 <Ian> ack zk
14:33:28 <AdrianHB> I believe all use cases can be accommodated using subdomains and this is more aligned with the web's origin security model
14:34:16 <Ian> zkoch: Of those three use cases, none is uniquely solved by the wallet concept. there are other ways to solve these with the primitives that have been provided. But adding wallets adds a lot of complexity, both to the spec and to the UI
14:34:24 <Ian> ...on mobile in particular.
14:34:34 <Ian> [Recall that "on desktop" was more likely than "on mobile"]
14:35:01 <Ian> zkoch: This is not something we'd be adding visual support for at this time. I think Chrome philosophy would be for consistency across platforms.
14:35:11 <Ian> ...I think there is little value add, more to test, and more complexity.
14:35:26 <Ian> ...I agree these use cases exist but are both edge-casey and can be solved through other means.
14:36:03 <Ian> [Recall subdomain argument against was that is forced people to manage their web space a particular way ... ]
14:36:15 <MattS> q+
14:36:28 <Ian> ack Matt
14:36:53 <zkoch> q+
14:36:56 <rouslan> q+
14:37:01 <Ian> MattS: I want to add to recollection about subdomains --- you'd also need certs for https and higher cost to create wallets dynamically on an origin
14:37:07 <AdrianHB> Wildcard certs?
14:37:53 <Ian> MattS:....would be good to hear from browser vendors whether others would do similar to Google (and not render hierarchy)
14:37:55 <zkoch> q-
14:38:07 <AdrianHB> Another argument against wallets is that they can easily be added later but will be hard to remove
14:38:24 <Ian> [IJ: Mozilla has in the past said "interesting for desktop" and more recently Marcos said "drop it"]
14:38:57 <Ian> IJ: I have not heard recently any implementation plans for htis.
14:39:04 <Ian> s/htis/this
14:39:05 <Ian> ack rouslan
14:39:25 <Ian> rouslan: Speaking to the comment about subdomains - they are a good way to separate your payment apps (same origin protections)
14:39:35 <Ian> ...but I think it's too heavy of a hammer for this small nail.
14:39:50 <Ian> ..they way that you can simulate wallets is to have 2 service workers that are responsible for different scopes
14:39:56 <Ian> ..e.g., one for personal and one for business
14:40:10 <Ian> q+ to ask about visual representation in that case
14:40:33 <Ian> rouslan: Also, service worker might open a web page for a conf dialog and in that dialog you can also present different instruments.
14:40:52 <Ian> ...so I think there are ways to do this without wallet concept as an API abstraction...
14:40:59 <Ian> ...we can use existing web technologies to solve this problem.
14:41:00 <Ian> q?
14:41:01 <Ian> ack me
14:41:01 <Zakim> Ian, you wanted to ask about visual representation in that case
14:41:24 <Ian> IJ: How do you get a visual distinction in case of 2 service workers?
14:42:26 <Ian> zkoch: each service worker can have a unique mapping to its own manifest
14:42:36 <Ian> ...those manifests can be different.
14:43:30 <Ian> IJ: I am glad there is a manifest approach to this; not sure what dependencies that creates
14:43:54 <Ian> https://w3c.github.io/payment-handler/#paymentwallet-dictionary
14:44:21 <Ian> IJ: It's just visual
14:44:59 <Ian> zkoch: I still see Wallet as unnecessary, the payment handler itself can have a name and icon on it if you don't want to build in too strong a dependency
14:45:50 <Ian> Summary:
14:45:56 <Ian>  * Can use manifest, but that creates a dependency
14:46:12 <Ian>  * You can get rid of wallet abstraction, but the payment handler itself has somewhere on itself a name/icon/instrument keys
14:46:14 <AdrianHB> Why is a dependency on manifest a problem?
14:46:45 <zkoch> Not a problem from my opinion :)
14:47:03 <Ian> https://w3c.github.io/payment-handler/#paymentmanager-interface
14:47:53 <Ian> http://caniuse.com/#feat=web-app-manifest
14:48:08 <Ian> https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/
14:48:44 <adrianba> i think it is a non-issue
14:49:08 <Ian> IJ: Question is both web app manifest implementation and status of spec
14:49:26 <Ian> adrianba: I think there is sufficient work on implementation that web app manifest will stay ahead in the process so the dependency won't be a problem.
14:49:41 <AdrianHB> +1 to adrianba
14:50:01 <AdrianHB> Also noting that implementation of Payment Handler from anyone other than Chrome is still uncertain
14:50:58 <Ian> Proposal: Drop wallet concept in favor of using N service workers + independent web app manifests
14:51:10 <zkoch> +1
14:51:11 <adrianba> +1
14:51:16 <rouslan> +1
14:51:18 <AdrianHB> +1
14:51:39 <AdrianHB> Request that we get AdamR feedback before we merge this change
14:51:56 <AdrianHB> (As he was major proponent of wallets)
14:52:10 <Ian> IJ: I Proposal also that we show an example of how to do personal/biz wallets; Rouslan could you write that up?
14:52:27 <Ian> ACTION: Ian to reach out to Adam Roach about this; if he is ok then we resolve to adopt the proposal
14:52:28 <trackbot> 'Ian' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., IFSF-EFT-WG-Lead, ijacobs, ijmad).
14:52:32 <adamR> My concern is mostly that you get sign-off from merchants and banks. If they don’t want it, I don’t really care. My concern all along was that we weren’t addressing their use cases.
14:52:58 <AdrianHB> Thanks AdamR
14:53:39 <zkoch> If were were removing use cases, I would agree. But I don’t think we’re removing use cases. We’re just saying “here is how you will do what you want"
14:53:39 <Ian> IJ: Are other people on this call hearing demand for this?
14:54:16 <Ian> ACTION: Ian to go back to the payment app task force with this discussion and work with Rouslan on example (for in a few weeks) of biz/personal wallet
14:54:16 <trackbot> 'Ian' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., IFSF-EFT-WG-Lead, ijacobs, ijmad).
14:54:17 <Ian> ack Matt
14:54:29 <Ian> MattS: The demand from my perspective would be from Worldpay (not merchants directly)
14:54:49 <Ian> ..Worldpay would very much like this
14:54:50 <mweksler> q+
14:55:03 <AdrianHB> +1 zkoch - noting that we can bring them back if implementation experience is that they are required
14:55:28 <Ian> MattS: Worldpay would like this feature. The two points I've heard in this call saying (1) can be added later....I sympathize with that (2) no implementers yet
14:55:37 <Ian> ...so let me say if it's implemented, Worldpay interested in the feature
14:55:40 <Ian> ack mw
14:56:04 <Ian> mweksler: I think we could potentially use this; but not must have right now
14:56:08 <AdrianHB> @matts - I think you'd use subdomains anyway for security and to isolate your different apps from each other
14:56:12 <Ian> ..the most compelling argument to me is walk before we run
14:56:25 <Ian> ...so support "dropping for now as specified"
14:56:27 <Ian> q?
14:56:49 <Max> Max has joined #WPWG
14:57:06 <Ian> zakim, close this item
14:57:06 <Zakim> agendum 4 closed
14:57:07 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:57:07 <Zakim> 5. Rechatering/TPAC [from Ian]
14:57:12 <Ian> zakim, take up item 5
14:57:12 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Rechatering/TPAC" taken up [from Ian]
14:57:21 <Ian> Our charter expires 31 Dec
14:57:29 <Ian> ...We will start to discuss rechartering at September calls
14:57:34 <Ian> ...People may suggest features of a revised charter by email.
14:57:50 <Ian> IJ: I have a question about the "out of browser" payments part of our charter scope
14:58:30 <Ian> topic: Next meeting
14:58:48 <Ian> Proposed: 27 July
14:58:53 <Ian> IJ: Any regrets?
14:58:59 <Ian> RESOLVED: 27 July is next meeting
14:59:05 <adrianba> i won't make it
14:59:06 <Ian> RRSAGENT, make minutes
14:59:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/20-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
14:59:26 <Ian> RRSAGENT, set logs public
16:16:05 <adamR> adamR has joined #wpwg