WPIG Payment Architecture Task Force Telecon -- 31 Jul 2015

<github-bot> [13webpayments-ig] 15ianbjacobs pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/892f70fd3f04e95810a7935d5c53a472402daa91

<github-bot> 13webpayments-ig/06master 14892f70f 15Ian Jacobs: Updated to match updated diagram

<github-bot> [13webpayments-ig] 15ianbjacobs pushed 1 new commit to 06gh-pages: 02https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/ba3c91bcc7146cd9cf402d340ed6769b1b3a3e7c

<github-bot> 13webpayments-ig/06gh-pages 14ba3c91b 15Ian Jacobs: Merge branch 'master' into gh-pages

<scribe> scribenick: manu

Manu reviews agenda - asks for additions.

Ian: One comment - blog post for IG when we start member review of charter.
... All materials will be public, having a blog post showing progress since face-to-face would be good.
... would be happy to work on it - unless someone else would.

<AdrianHB> Happy to help on that blog post

Charter Updates

<Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Jul/0234.html

Ian: A quick summary of the changes that were announced here based on chat w/ David Singer at Apple.
... I'll skip the editorial stuff.
... The thing that's most challenging to do w/o another set of roundtrips was the definitions.

<Ian> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/charters/payments-wg-charter.html

Ian: Here's the draft...
... Do the definitions work for folks?
... The emphasis on the "digital" part is the most interesting.
... I think it's true that we're not working on physical cash - I think that's a bit self evident - but don't mind telling the story about payment schemes and using the word "digital" to describe them.
... I came to peace w/ the digital bit, not necessary but okay. Wanted to see if definitions worked for folks.
... They're simpler, which I liked. Our definition of digital wallet was more expansive - more expansive definition of digital wallet - we narrowed the definition before.
... I tried to keep the definitions simple, I like them as is.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to mention that escrow uses physical cash so we should be careful about saying cash is out of scope

AdrianHB: In my work on the charter, I had a number of discussions w/ Mountie about escrow and how it worked. A lot of those services are cash-based. The piece that we'd deal w/ is establishment of terms and agreement on escrow service to use - that might go under the banner of payment scheme. Ultimately, the payment is done by cash, so we should not say "cash is out of scope"... that'll raise red flags for people in Asia-Pacific region.
... The Boleto use case in Brazil is another example

Ian: The comment is more about the protocol - it's a digital one - whatever you represent online is within scope. I don't think it's saying more than that.

AdrianHB: We don't want to imply that any payment scheme or instrument is out of scope.

Ian: We may want to talk about this like we talked about wallets - we start off by talking about physical wallet and then talk about digital wallets.

AdrianHB: I don't think "digital" adds any clarity.

<nick> sorry, was getting some background info

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention that digital is strange - does W3C do anything that's not digital?

<Ian> Manu: +1 to adrian. A long time ago in the payments CG we put "digital" everywhere and then after reviews people said it did not add clarity.

<Ian> ...I don't think digital adds clarity, but it doesn't hurt. It's just more unneeded text.

Nick: For those that missed the initial intro - I'm going to try and shed some light on Apple's comments.
... One of the reasons we wanted to clear this up, in the original version, there was this interchangability - sometimes we'd refer to wallet, sometimes we talked about digital. I do note Adrian's point, we are trying to clear up some ambiguity around this. We do have some legal reasons that I can't go into the call about.
... I think we're trying to add some clarity here.

dezell: I was going to +1 what Adrian was saying, in the NACS world we have customers that act as a bank - they're just changing one form of payment into another. They may not hold escrow - that's one use case, but there's another one - Wells Fargo use case - you go in and put down $400, the ability to exchange that money using a Web Payment is when that becomes important.

<nick> to be clear, we are not proposing to elimnate cash

dezell: It's dangerous to eliminate cash, because it's central about what we're trying to do.

Ian: I'd like to get to the question of the actual definition. My proposal was to augment. In original text that David sent me, it had some text that I was not happy with, after some discussion, we agreed on these.
... The examples we have in the glossary, we'd augment them - not critical to have the examples here - want to see if we can adopt these definitions - the core of it.
... For purposes of the charter, like others on the call, I perceive it as less critical - there are reasons to take member feedback into account, least objectionable of the two may be the one that's more verbose.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to propose that unless there are objections we just leave "digital" in and move on

AdrianHB: I personally have no objection with us putting digital payment instruments in there - it's strange to have a 'payment instrument' and 'digital payment instrument' and combine those definitions.

Ian: I started to do that

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to speak to that

Ian: The question was whether we used the non-digital ones, there were instances where there was usage of the non-digital version.
... Some payment schemes used other payment schemes, not part of scope.
... I can go back and review to see if there are non-digital uses.

AdrianHB: Let's do that.

<Ian> Proposal: Ian's proposal but 3 dfns instead of 6

<nick> +1

<padler> +1

<dezell> +1

<AdrianHB> +1 to Ian's proposal

<collier-matthew> +1

RESOLUTION: Ian's proposal but 3 definitions instead of 6.

Ian: Can we update these in the glossary

Manu: I think we need to discuss with the group first.

<nick> sure, sounds good

Ian: Second change, Apple Pay uses other schemes internally - a scheme can use schemes. We're talking about communication, how things are used internally isn't in scope. Added that statement.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest a subtle change to that bit

AdrianHB: I suggest that we change wording slightly - schemes use payment instruments from other schemes. That might be bikeshedding at this point.
... That was the text that was proposed to me, use of other instruments from other payment schemes - I felt like it was shorter, to a certain extent it means the same thing. I just felt it was shorter.
... Is it schemes all the way down?

Ian: Someone has to use a payment instrument at some point.
... I don't have a strong preference, other than keeping it short.

<Ian> Proposal: 'make use of payment instruments from other payment schemes" instead of "make use of other payment schemes"

<Ian> +0

+0, doesn't understand what we're talking about based on the text.

<Ian> (IJ will do that one)

<AdrianHB> +1 :)

Ian: Moved some other stuff around.

<AdrianHB> +1 to using the stronger privacy stuff from the vision

Ian: There is a proposal from David Baron that we need to discuss still.

Nick: With respect to David's statement, I don't think what he's suggesting is our intent.

<Ian> (See proposal re: David Baron's concern)

<Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Jul/0238.html

Nick: We want to make sure that we're in a position where we can join the group... same for other companies.

Ian: I don't know if David will be satisfied by the sentence - have others read it? Do you have a sense that it is ok?
... Mozilla comments are at times about ensuring a level playing field - it's a reasonable comment, we don't want to create a standard where only offline agreements can be used to use this tech.
... What I don't know is where the wiggle has to be, or where the clarity has to be - don't know if others reacted to David's comments - don't know what he wants us to change.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention difficulty of addressing comment.

<Ian> Manu: The concern seems to be that it's tightly coupled between browsers and payment processors, but that's not the intention of the group.

Ian: I think we have mentioned level playing field in the past - that's high-level expectation, in charter we're trying to say what the interfaces will be.
... It was a good catch if that's a concern, one way to read it - we should fix it before the review... but that wasn't the intention.

AdrianHB: I agree with what's been said about David's motivations, I read this comment to imply that a small change in wording was required, and that is all.
... We made a small change, and a small change is all we need to fix it. We should just say we are not limiting the scope, we're creating an open ecosystem.
... That would resolve the issue for him.

Ian: I don't want to revert to a less well defined charter. I'd like to maintain the scope statements that we have - what statements we could make about scope or whether framing it will satisfy david. +1 to working w/ David until he's satisfied.

<dezell> +1 to holding on being specific, but working with David

Ian: I'd like to see if we can stay with that level of clarity.
... We don't want a misunderstanding.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say we're burning a lot of time on charter and may be hitting diminishing returns on it.

<AdrianHB> +1 to manu

<nick> sorry ;)

Nick: Just very quickly, I don't think we are worried about WG adherance to charter - we want to make sure we can participate. We need to make sure that some of our IP is excluded.

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Web_Payments_WG_Charter_FAQ

Web Payments WG FAQ

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Web_Payments_WG_Charter_FAQ#What_payment_flows_will_the_standards_support.3F

Ian: Two things happened yesterday, Adrian and I walked through diagram and revised it - here's the revised diagram:
... I was pleased to go back and forth with Adrian and understand what was happening... improvement in clarity - other comment was the statements above it were confusing/mismatched - based on call yesterday - and enlightenment on reviewing diagram, I modified text above. That's another thing to look at. Third thing - based on Zach's observation - regrouped the benefits under primary and secondary beneficiaries - more clear in our framing.
... Those were changes, wanted to make people aware of them.

Pat: Comment above wasn't that it was mismatched, just that it was hard to pull out of the diagram below.
... Big encompassing flow - it tends to leave out some of the different capabilities that may emerge - it felt a bit too narrow as far as scoping.
... Don't want to distract the group - the text was mismatched.

Ian: Can the diagram stand on its own to explain the flow - in the end, I went in that direction - wanted to characterize the steps - payment happened - part one is payment initiation, part 2 is payment completion. I have no problem working on diagrams generally or with specific examples. Yaso had taken an action item and had started to do some stuff, David you may want to follow up with her.
... I was also trying to contact Adam to get his action on composability moving forward.
... I find the diagram helpful, yes we can do better, let's try to drive that forward. Examples that Adrian wrote up were useful.
... The whole section on examples is long, I may try to read that later today.
... I think I eliminated your comments - left two in... other parties even further afield - some comments like "easier to do regulation" - more time needs to be spent on capturing those... updated long description of image.
... Hope FAQ is useful, will make charter edit's later today.

DavidE: I will send comments later on today.

Capabilities Next Steps

<nick> Thanks all, just wanted to clear up our charter changes so I’m heading out.

https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/capabilities/index.html

Pat: We've moved to ReSpec. Now that charter is done, we're going to fill out the document editorially, would be very interested in people adding comments/thoughts to capabilities document. There are two schools of thought as to timing - 1) since roadmap and charter link to it, we're trying to get additional text into capabilities before the 15th of August (before the review), 2) we may want to get the document ready before TPAC, so get it ready for WGs before TPA

C to use.

Pat: So, as a part of the IG - give capabilities over as context/framing.

<AdrianHB> +1 to take our time (we already have use cases, roadmap and FAQ for extra reading for the AC)

Manu: We could work on adding editorial until 15th, and then expand capabilities after that.

DavidE: I haven't had time to look at it in detail, will review.
... I caught the tail end of your comment about the 15th - August 15th - why that date?

Manu: Lots of small reasons - get it to AC reps, reasonable timeframe, keep pressure on the Capabilities doc.

Pat: It's intended to provide glue between different WGs so that they don't get disconnected on what happens in the future.
... Folks working on Payments and Credentials and Security - help tie those together and give folks a good idea of how all this stuff fits together.
... We did get feedback on Faster Payments Task Force about looking at solution criteria - would be published in 4-6 weeks. We can't use it until that time.
... We're expecting next 4-6 weeks.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to tie to tf feedback

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk about US Fed FPTF capabilities.

<dezell> manu: frustration that the external groups require alot of effort to get the documents required.

<dezell> manu: we want to help, but if we can't share the material in a timely fashion, it's hard to get feedback.

dezell: This is a bit off-topic - I had one substantive problem with the criteria - undue focus on push payment - has nothing to do w/ faster. I do think - wish that this group could get some exposure to it.
... I talked w/ Manu about this in email - the Ubiquity piece, some of the capabilities (that Pat are working on), really belong at W3C - the other stuff, infrastructure, regulation, belongs in Faster Payments space.
... Obviously W3C can't work on infrastructure / regulation - not sure how to make this point, would love to work w/ you Manu to make this happen.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to clarify the concerns.

Manu: My concern is that we're going to miss an opportunity to work with US Fed.

Pat: One approach, FPTF folks can raise this on taskforce calls - give them a link to our charter and documentation that we have - here's an industry group that's broad that wants to standardize these things. Here's documentation - get some visibility.
... Both Task Force is made up of industry groups - so not the US Fed is saying that stuff is ready - we have to get clearance from members - faster payments task force participants.
... We should have that discussion at FPTF.

dezell: +1 to having the face-to-face conversations with these folks - maybe we can use Erik's filtered sharing system? Can we share it in that way for our discussion.

<AdrianHB> -1 for using the doc sharing tool - I still haven't managed to get it to work :(

dezell: Sounds like just sharing it w/ FPTF members in the WPIG would be good.
... We're also in a pivotal point w/ ISO12812 - didn't pass the primary ballot - Mark Tiggas is going to ask about "What's going to be done about this?"
... Standard is being available as we speak - anyone that has access should give a look.

<dezell> Proposed topics for Monday:

<dezell> Review final Apple comments

<dezell> FAQ

<dezell> Capabilities

<dezell> Difficulty with External Review

<AdrianHB> +1 to agenda (and Pat's comments)

- DRAFT -

WPIG Payment Architecture Task Force Telecon

31 Jul 2015

Attendees

Contents

Charter Updates

Web Payments WG FAQ

Capabilities Next Steps

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output