- Danyao Wang (Google)...chrome + payments
<danyao> Hello everyone!
- Kate McHugh (Capital One)
scribe: did PH API pilot!
- Ryan McDonough (Oath/Yahoo/AOL)...looking at this from service provider perspective
nicktr: Thanks everyone for
joining
... and to everyone who could join us in Lyon
... we meet by phone every 2 weeks or so...chairs would like
this to be your agenda!
... today we want to start with a recap of TPAC and to hear
your feedback
<nicktr> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2018Oct/0020.html
[IJ will publish a summary shortly]
NickTR: Let us know if there are any corrections necessary
IJ: Any comments/feedback questions about TPAC?
[No comments/feedback/questions]
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20181101#steps-to-recommendation-for-payment-request
NickTR: We laid out a pathway;
estimate 3-6 months to get to REC
... remove supportedTypes, add new method around
canMakePayment, billing address support
... we will formally go through Candidate Recommendation again
after getting some security review of new features
... that triggers an exclusion period over the delta
... then after that, we would work on implementations and
alignment with the test suite:
https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/payment-request
scribe: we've been chatting with
Marcos this week about test suite and getting help
... special thanks to Marcos who has done a huge amount of work
in that space
... if anyone on the call wants to contribute via testing, that
is hugely valuable
... and then the hope/expectation is to hit Recommendation in
Q2 2019
IJ: PMI is "ready"
<nicktr> scribenick: nicktr
IJ: we need to remove
supportedTypes from basic card
... I think we need to examine issues around user experience -
thru discussions on visual identity and on the spotify
trial
... I am reaching out to browser vendors around evolving the
user experience
... my other comment is on payment handler
<Ian> scribenick: Ian
<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to aks a q about UX
AdrianHB: A comment on the UX...I am interested to understand what you think it our limit to our remit around user experience.
<nicktr> scribenick: nicktr
IJ: there's an indication that the specification itself won't speak to user experience
<AdrianHB> +1
IJ: However, I think it's
valuable for us to facilitate discussion and provide
feedback
... We may complete the specification without resolving the
issues around user experience
... Hope that's clear
<Ian> NickTR: SRC was published by EMVCo v .9 the Friday before TPAC
<AdrianHB> RE: UX, I would like us to ensure we don't over-use the groups energy on things outside our remit if we still have spec work to do
<Ian> NickTR: I want to express appreciation to EMVCo for making a draft specification available
<Ian> ..there are excellent supporting materials as well
<Ian> ...my recommendation would be for those who want a shorter introduction to check out:
<Ian> https://www.emvco.com/media-centre/emv-secure-remote-commerce-kit/
<Ian> ...the specification describes a large ecosystem
<Ian> ...we want to ask the group: how would you like the WPWG to interact with it?
<Ian> ...we could, for example, organize a formal review of the specification.
<Ian> ..there is a public review period until 3 December
<Ian> ...we could consolidate feedback from WPWG participants; people may also be providing feedback through other channelss
<Ian> Laura: I'm not aware that EMVCo has done this before (Public review period).
<Ian> ...this is an important opportunity for people to weigh in
<Ian> ...please provide review either from personal perspective or from w3c
<Ian> ..MAG has started to provide feedback
<Ian> ...question for this group - how do you expect to interact with EMVCo or the networks as PR API moves forward
<Ian> ...my question/ask is that we continue to think of SRC as a distinct work item
<Ian> ...as a merchant group we want choices
<Ian> ...how will the relationship evolve going forward?
<scribe> scribenick: nicktr
IJ: I+1 for the opportunity to
review the spec
... yesterday I asked Mastercard and Amex for some help
especially around mapping roles between the two
specifications
... it would be great if we could succinctly say "here's where
payment request maps onto SRC"
... so I'm restating that request for support from the scheme
networks
... FIDO and W3C and EMVCo are working on a draft charter for a
discussion group called "secure web payments interest
group"
... which would help the organisations achieve
interoperability
... perhaps a little earlier in the specification
processes
... previously different confidentiality rules have hinder that
dialogue
... we are trying to work towards holding this in "member
space"
... I am hoping that the charter review process will happen in
December
... There is also the question of how things are going to work
together
... we can look at things like tokenisation
... we can also look at other things like credit transfer
expecially in the light of PSD2 in Europe
... and that would produce more hooks for more
implementations
... we saw at TPAC a demo by Klarna which illustrates the value
of the ecosystem we are building
... and just today I have been contacted by someone who is
interested in developing a bitcoin method
... we will do work that the members want us to do
<Ian> scribenick: Ian
<nicktr> lte_: this is helpful.
<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to speak to how the W3C API and SRC should "interact" (based on how the W3C API was designed) and wrt question about "choice"
AdrianHB: Ian said a lot of what
I wanted to say. I want to emphasize one point - the tech
architecture is about choice...
... anybody can independently define how payments will work,
with browsers mediating requests between a site and a provider
of payment methods
... I don't think that SRC and W3C work are incompatible
... our goal is that payment methods from EMVCo or SEPA or
anywhere can be supported by PR API
... and the critical piece to make that work is payment
handlers
... we need to continue to progress payment handlers
Laura: Are the browsers looking to play a role within SRC?
IJ: That's my request of the
networks.
... to help us understand that mapping
<danyao> +q to talk new use cases for web based payment handlers, e.g. micropayments and subscriptions.
<Zakim> rouslan, you wanted to talk payment handlers
IJ: I would like to understand how PR API roles fit into SRC roles
Rouslan: From our perspective as
Chrome browser, we would like to make payment handlers
ubiquitous
... we'd like for anyone to be able to implement a payment
handler that fits into SRC, that would be the best
appraoch
... we still need to do work on payment handler spec and
supporting documentation
... I would like for people to reach out to the editors of the
PH API to talk about using payment handlers; what features are
needed, etc.
... I think that payment handler will play important role in
SRC ecosystem , with the browser taking a supporting role
<nicktr> +1 to criticality of payment handler
nickTR: Yes, PH is crucial in my view
<Zakim> danyao, you wanted to talk new use cases for web based payment handlers, e.g. micropayments and subscriptions. and to talk new use cases for web based payment handlers, e.g.
danyao: Chrome really thinks PH's
are important to extensibility
... if people are interested in PHs for subscriptions and
micropayments....let me know
<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to talk about resuming PH API call monthly with interested parties
Ian: Is there interest in a monthly meeting of people interested in creating Web-based payment handlers? This would help us continue to get feedback on the specification and resolve issues.
<nicktr> scribenick: nicktr
<Ian> https://w3c.github.io/payment-handler/
IJ: right now we have payment handler implemented by google and samsung
<Ian> https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/issues
IJ: we have a large issues
list
... many of them are about javscript low level issues
... but some are higher level functional questions
... Adrian and Rouslan and I thought it would be good to
restart the regular call with members who are building payment
handlers
... it becomes more interesting if Mozilla and Microsoft also
implement
<rouslan> +1
<danyao> +1 for monthly call on payment handler
<MattD> +1
IJ: so I'd like a show of hands: who thinks we should restart the weekly call?
<Kate_McHugh> +1
<Ian> IJ: Show of hands for monthly call?
<AdrianHB> +1
<benoit> +1
<Ian> ACTION: Ian to schedule a monthly payment handler call for feedback and progress on the spec
<scribe> scribenick: ian
<trackbot> 'Ian' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., IFSF-EFT-WG-Lead, ijacobs).
<Ken> 1+
<scribe> scribenick: Ian
rouslan: Monthly meeting a good
forcing function to remind people of our existence
... but at the same time I'd like to encourage people to reach
out at any time
<danyao> yep happy to talk to anyone interested in Payment Handler
AdrianHB: It occurs to me that as a group we are gravitating to payment handlers being a critical piece; maybe we can use this call time as well
<nicktr> IJ: maybe - previously I was asking whether there were things to bring to the weekly call but mostly they were too low level
<nicktr> AdrianHB: I agree, but it sounds like we are looking to talk higher level things
<nicktr> IJ: I am sticking with maybe.
IJ: Rouslan, where would you place Credit Suisse discussion: high-level or low-level?
<nicktr> IJ: I propose we organise the call and level set after that
IJ: +1 to needing to understand the agenda better. I would like to see if we can start with a task force and if everyone goes there and we cancel this call, we can swap
AdrianHB: Ok to play by ear
NickTR: Regarding SRC, I'd like
to propose that we DO spend a chunk of Thursday call talking
about SRC, in particular I would like to ask people whether
their orgs will help us with a review
... if you can come to the next call with an offer to help,
please do
... likely 14 Nov
IJ: Would 15 Nov allow enough time?
<scribe> ACTION: NickTR to review SRC with WPWG formal position in mind
<trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Review src with wpwg formal position in mind [on Nick Telford-Reed - due 2018-11-08].
NickTR: I can produce a straw man of my feedback in 2 weeks time
<AdrianHB> +1 (thanks Nick)
IJ: Could someone from MC or Amex
make a commitment to do a 1-pager
... what are the artifacts in the ecosystem? what are the roles
and responsibilities?
... what's the flow in terms of PR API?
Ken: We would like to produce this but can't commit to timing yet; will let you know.
IJ: I am hearing SRC on the 15 Nov agenda with NickTR summary
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/prapi-deployment-faq
IJ: Please give feedback on that!
15 November