Update on getting to a Call for Consensus

Dear Web Payments Working Group,



This is an update about the upcoming Call for Consensus to publish  FPWD(s).  Manu, Shane, Zach please see a request inline for (potential) action by Thursday 31st March.



* Many thanks to the participants who took the time to register pull requests and to  the Editors for updating the specifications.



* It has been our goal to merge existing pull requests prior to the Call for Consensus. To enable us to advance, any new pull requests  will be handled after the publication of FPWD(s).



* The Editors have merged many pull requests but a number remain.



* As a group we need clearer guidance on a consistent practice for raising issues. Please stay tuned for guidance on raising issue which we will start talking about on Thursday.



* It is also clear that there was not a shared understanding for how  we would manage the inclusion of issue markers in the  specifications. In order to make progress, the Chairs will adopt the  following model for including issue markers in the FPWD(s). It is a  reasonable fit for the current set of issues.  After FPWD we can  adjust this model as needed.



* Please note:

- Publication of FPWDs does not imply that there is WPWG consensus about ANY text of the specification. W3C practice is to state this once in the status section  of the document.



- When we ask people to provide feedback, we will direct them to both the specification(s) and the issue lists(s). Note that many issues will remain open even if there is no corresponding issue marker in a specification. The introductory blog also highlights areas for continued attention and discussion.



* Here is the model for managing inclusion of issue markers in the FPWD(s):

- When an issue is relevant to a specification and there is no  proposal in the specification, we will include an issue marker.



- When an issue is relevant to a specification and there is corresponding text in the specification, we will include an issue marker only for the purpose of drawing attention to a specific part of the text. We will not include an issue marker using general text with a comments or question about potential alternatives. (Discussion should continue on the GitHub issues list until there are concrete proposals.)



- When an issue is not relevant to a specification, we will not  include an issue marker in that specification.



- Whether or not an issue is relevant to a specification, when there are concerns that the topic is out of scope for the Working Group, we will not include an issue marker in a specification until the Working Group has made a decision on the scope. This is to reduce the breadth of organizations' patent policy reviews until there is a decision from the Working Group.



* Adrian and I have reviewed the specification(s) and concluded that issue markers already in the specification(s) follow this model.



* SHANE, one pull request is from you,



#64: editorial changes - as discussed, Github indicated the changes were against an outdated diff, but there seems to be broad agreement on the changes - can you try again against the head?



* ZACH, one pull request is from you,



Discussion on concrete proposal is ongoing:  #65.

Suggested fix: Attempt to close discussion on proposal in the Group. Do not include PR at this time



* MANU, nine of the pull requests not yet merged are from you. Here is the rationale for not merging them and suggested fixes:



Issue marker not specific to current text: #79,#81, #82, #85

Suggested fix: Drop request, or ensure text is specific to the current text and move to relevant parts of specs (comments in Github)



Issue regarding payment apps:

#84 (communication with native wallets).

#77 (web apps)

Suggested fix: Move to User Agent delegates payment request algorithm section per Github comments on these PRs



Issue regarding encryption of responses

#87 (since encryption applies to response data, not defined  in the payment Request API).

Suggested fix: Include in basic card payment spec per Github comments



Potentially out of scope for the WG:

#73  (cross browser registration of payment apps)

Suggested fix: Do not include until the WG has reached consensus on the issues and scope.



Non-issue: #83

Suggested fix: Do not include issue marker, since line items are optional in the specification.

* I created PR #96 to move as an alternative to PR #77 into the architecture document, so that PR is covered in the discussion above.



We ask that you make any adjustments to your pull requests that you  feel are appropriate to facilitate them being merged according to  the above model. We request that you make any changes by the time of our call on Thursday 31st March. If you do not think that is enough time, please let me or Adrian know.



* If, after that time, there remain pull requests that have not been merged, the Chairs will make a decision whether to issue a Call for Consensus nonetheless. In the case of a decision to issue a pull  request, the Chairs will provide rationale for each open pull  request. Please note that by adopting the above model, the Chairs  hope to minimize the need for additional rationale. In this  scenario, we expect the Call for Consensus on  1st April (or shortly  thereafter) for 7 days.

* If the Chairs decide NOT to issue a Call for Consensus, the Working  Group will discuss at its next call how to make progress.



Thank you all for your help as we advance to FPWD,

Nick, on behalf on WPWG Chairs
--
Nick Telford-Reed | Technology Innovation | m: +447799473854 | t: +44 203 664 5069
s: WorldPay Centre, 270-289 Science Park, Milton Rd, Cambridge CB4 0WE UK

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, intended only for the addressee and may be privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any content that does not relate to the business of Worldpay is personal to the sender and not authorised or endorsed by Worldpay. Worldpay does not accept responsibility for viruses or any loss or damage arising from transmission or access.

Worldpay (UK) Limited (Company No: 07316500/ Financial Conduct Authority No: 530923), Worldpay Limited (Company No:03424752 / Financial Conduct Authority No: 504504), Worldpay AP Limited (Company No: 05593466 / Financial Conduct Authority No: 502597). Registered Office: The Walbrook Building, 25 Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF and authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority under the Payment Service Regulations 2009 for the provision of payment services. Worldpay (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for consumer credit activities. Worldpay B.V. (WPBV) has its registered office in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Handelsregister KvK no. 60494344). WPBV holds a licence from and is included in the register kept by De Nederlandsche Bank, which registration can be consulted through www.dnb.nl. Worldpay, the logo and any associated brand names are trade marks of the Worldpay group.