W3C

SPC Task Force

03 May 2021

Attendees

Present
Adrian Hope-Bailie (Coil), Amy Slack (American Express), Christian Aabye (Visa), Clinton Allen (American Express), Doug Fisher (Visa), Gerhard Oosthuizen (Entersekt), Gustavo Kok (Netflix), Ian Jacobs (W3C), Jean-Carlo Emer (Stripe), Jeff Hodges (Google), Michel Weksler (Airbnb), Praveena Subrahmany (Airbnb), Sameer Tare (Mastercard), Stephen McGruer (Google), Werner Bruinings (American Express)
Regrets
Anne Pouillard, Tomasz Blachowicz
Chair
Ian
Scribe
Ian

Meeting minutes

Chrome SPC Origin trial end date

Mweksler: Airbnb and Adyen are going to do a pilot with SPC. Want to do this as part of the origin trial, and to see if we have any flexibility on the end date.

Stephen: The origin trial is from 91-93. I think this is through mid-September
… we extend origin trials for 2 reasons
… if there's a browser bug (invalidating the origin trial)
… more commonly, when partners need more time!
… sometimes we can extend 1 or more release cycles

mweksler: It would be great to chat with you more about the pilot idea. When would we need to request the extension and to whom?

Stephen: File the request with me
… how about aiming for mid-July? (But there is flexibility.)

michel: Noted!

User stories

Scope document and in particular pull request 60 which adds use stories, first draft.

1) Out of band enrollment

Stephen: +1 to this use case. Captures the important of "enrolling all your payment instruments"

2) In-transaction enrollment, authentication same merchant

3) Authentication different merchant

4) Enrollment for both payment authentication and account login

mweksler: The details are for discussion but the general idea is to do one-step login plus payment authentication
… it would be great if, during a guest checkout, the user pays and the merchant can use the authentication step both for payment and to create an account

Gerhard_: When I look at this use case from a banking perspective, we definitely see the use case.
… are you thinking about this from banking or merchant perspective?

mweksler: Merchant perspective. Want to use credentials for future login
… user perspective is "just authenticate once; allow multiple usage"

stephen: In the use case it talks about using this credential on a "different" merchant.

<Gerhard_> Just note Michel: This sounds more like Delegated Auth use-cases.

michel: I was not thinking about cross-merchant login

Ian: My understanding of the idea was that the issuer is the RP, and gives the merchant the info required to re-use the credential for login. But it's not clear how the merchant could trigger the authentication if they are not the RP (and login would happen outside of SPC).

<SameerT> +1 to what Gerhard mentioned, owner (RP) of the credentials will drive use-cases differently

smcgruer_[EST]: Sharing creds is a FIDO problem, not an SPC problem

5) Lower Friction

(Brought to us by Entersekt)

https://github.com/w3c/secure-payment-confirmation/pull/60/files

Gerhard: Low friction to me is "transaction display but just "verify" button"
… you still get cryptographic signature
… this is not a frictionless flow (e.g., based on previous consent by the user)
… if there is a frictionless flow, then the signed data would need to say so

Ian: I think we've been talking about 3 levels:

1) display and user verification
… there is a multi-factor event

2) display and user presence

3) display and possession, but no user presence check

4) no display and no user presence check

(but previous consent)

JeffH: Silent authentication is not supported in WebAuthn but technically can be done at CTAP layer
… authenticators might have displays
… authenticators that are discrete components that have display in the authenticator boundary are rare.

mweksler: I suggest that if we feel like the use case is useful, we can still add it
… as a merchant, this is very useful (with user consent) to do something with silent authentication
… but we don't want to create a security hole

Action: To split these use cases into the 4 experiences we described here.

Regular meeting time

PROPOSED: Move this 30 mins to 1 hour every other week on thursday call

<Gerhard_> +1 for moving to WPWG group

<mweksler> +1 to move to an hour, -1 to 7 am pacific

Christian: We (EMVCo) have a conflict then

<Ian> No resolution yet to move the meeting, though we heard support by email from Anne Pouillard and from Gerhard here. Next meeting: 10 May

Summary of action items

  1. To split these use cases into the 4 experiences we described here.
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).