13:18:17 RRSAgent has joined #wpay 13:18:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/08-wpay-irc 13:18:19 RRSAgent, make logs 413 13:18:21 Zakim, this will be 13:18:21 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 13:18:22 Meeting: Web Payments Interest Group Teleconference 13:18:22 Date: 08 May 2015 13:18:37 zakim, this will be wpay 13:18:37 ok, manu; I see T&S_WEBPYMT(WPAY_AGENT)9:30AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes 13:19:09 s/Web Payments Interest Group Teleconference/Web Payments IG: Payment Architecture (Friday) Teleconference/ 13:19:18 trackbot, make logs public 13:19:18 Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, make logs public'. Please refer to for help. 13:19:22 rrsagent, make logs public 13:19:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:19:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/08-wpay-minutes.html manu 13:27:17 andersr has joined #wpay 13:28:52 T&S_WEBPYMT(WPAY_AGENT)9:30AM has now started 13:28:59 +padler 13:29:13 Zakim, who is on the call? 13:29:13 On the phone I see padler 13:29:46 zakim, code? 13:29:46 the conference code is 9729 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu 13:30:08 +[IPcaller] 13:30:18 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 13:30:18 +manu; got it 13:30:21 AdrianHB has joined #wpay 13:30:22 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:30:22 On the phone I see padler, manu 13:30:51 +??P28 13:31:05 zakim, ??p28 is me 13:31:05 +AdrianHB; got it 13:33:05 +Joerg 13:33:19 jheuer has joined #wpay 13:33:55 q? 13:34:24 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015May/0063.html 13:35:15 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Architecture_Priorities 13:36:30 Zakim, who is on the call? 13:36:30 On the phone I see padler, manu, AdrianHB, Joerg 13:36:47 scribe: AdrianHB 13:36:56 pat: focus today is establishing work priority 13:37:21 pat: what iteration length is appropriate? 13:37:29 pat: 1 week or 2 13:37:34 Topic: Organize Document Sprint 13:37:40 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Architecture_Priorities 13:37:51 pat: let's establish if there are any gaps in Manu's list 13:38:12 pat: then use the document to draft capabilities into the architecture doc 13:38:26 Link to Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FbHscEFUA1P6Frm9h-98bgBF8oCNNu3_0BZh8l7Aa0c/edit 13:38:50 pat: pg 8 - there is some content Manu has added 13:39:05 pat: actually pg 9, talks about requirements of arch 13:39:27 pat: we want to break out the capabilities by functional area 13:39:37 q? 13:39:39 pat: this helps allocate work to other w3c groups 13:40:08 manu: we do need to still discuss manifesto doc 13:40:27 manu: the arch doc is most imprtant but manifesto can be done in parallel 13:40:30 +1 13:40:37 manu: let's time box the agenda 13:40:52 manu: leave last 15 mins for other topics 13:41:03 +1 13:41:54 q+ to mention an approach to credentials 13:42:39 pat: we need to consider credential 13:42:46 pat: doesn't have to be part of v1 13:43:06 q+ 13:43:13 ack manu 13:43:13 manu, you wanted to mention an approach to credentials 13:43:15 pat: we are not talking about credentials yet, do we need to? 13:43:33 manu: we absolutely need credentials 13:43:52 manu: but looking at v1 there is a way to do this without credentials 13:44:14 manu: all the payee needs in the most simple use case is proof that money is on the way 13:44:24 manu: identity is at the KYC layer 13:44:59 manu: the v1 arch is not too compelling without credentials but we still need to decide if it's sprint 1 or 2 13:45:23 manu: credentials cg has been going for over a year 13:45:32 manu: it is trying to sole the real problem 13:45:38 s/sole/solve/ 13:45:43 q+ to decouple identity priority from credentials 13:46:32 manu: credentials came from web payments as an effort to split the two 13:46:34 manu: we need to understand how to decouple them so they can mature in parallel 13:47:14 manu: the payments work must assume the credentials work does what is required 13:47:36 ack jheuer 13:47:55 jheuer: I took opportunity over the last while to talk with dave 13:48:23 q+ to talk to symetry 13:48:26 jheuer: A thing that appears to be misunderstood is the symmetry that seems to be implicated by the payments agent structure 13:48:47 jheuer: i.e. agents talk to agents using same protocol 13:49:03 jheuer: we should try to do a doc that doesn't include credentials 13:49:23 jheuer: in reality there are always credentials involved 13:49:36 jheuer: we shouldn't try to do a doc that doesn't include credentials 13:49:53 q? 13:49:54 q? 13:49:56 ack padler 13:49:56 padler, you wanted to decouple identity priority from credentials and to talk to symetry 13:49:59 jheuer: strong +1 for intro credentials 13:50:19 q+ Adrian to mention why he wanted Credentials cleaved from Web Payments CG 13:50:25 pat: +1 for decoupling payment and credentials 13:51:07 pat: the credential stuff is imprtant, we are not suggesting it's not part of first arch just won't be focus for first 2 weeks 13:51:28 credentials de-couple payment identity and payment, which is a good thing 13:51:39 pat: yesterday we decided to define scope of work (not doc) so we could get focus 13:51:53 s/payment identity/identity/ 13:52:21 q+ to get back to sprint planning 13:52:35 we can work without identity, but not without credentials 13:53:22 pat: re your comment re symmetry. ur right every payment agent won't be the same 13:54:03 pat: but we do need certain things to be the same so the agents can use a common messaging standards 13:54:32 pat: other layers on top like loyalty may not be implemented in all agents 13:54:50 q+ 13:54:50 +1, agree with most of that 13:55:10 q? 13:55:42 ack AdrianHB 13:55:42 AdrianHB, you wanted to get back to sprint planning 13:55:47 ack Adrian 13:55:47 Adrian, you wanted to mention why he wanted Credentials cleaved from Web Payments CG 13:55:50 manu: I put adrian on the queue to explain his views 13:55:54 q+ AdrianHB to get back to sprint planning 13:56:19 Adrian: When I first joined the Web Payments CG - I was coming at it from an angle of exchanging payee information - not worrying about authenticating anyone. 13:57:06 +1 to the credential rationale 13:57:07 Adrian: It was from a background of knowing payment information - bank-to-bank payments... but when you go into a shop, teller swipes card, he doesn't have to know who I am... could be an anonymous gift card. No need for identity/credential exchange - they don't need to trust each other, they need to trust the system that they're using. 13:57:27 q+ to talk about identity of system actors and not just payees/payers 13:57:30 Adrian: As soon as you get in more complex scenarios, like age verification or interoperability across value networks, then you need credentials. 13:57:43 ack AdrianHB 13:57:43 AdrianHB, you wanted to get back to sprint planning 13:58:06 AdrianHB: We've spent first half of the meeting talking about credentials - they're important, we need to put them in there, let's get back to focusing on the sprint. 13:58:08 +1 for keeping us on track... :) 13:58:19 AdrianHB: Let's talk about what we're doing for the next two weeks. 13:58:24 ack jheuer 13:58:47 jheuer: I'd like to keep identity out of the discussion, that's not necessary for the elementary use cases. 13:58:49 jheuer: I agree with what has been said. I would like to keep identity out but I think credentials are required 13:58:58 manu: +1 to keeping identity out of this. 13:59:20 pat: to clarify what I mean by identity, it's loaded 13:59:32 q? 13:59:35 ack padler 13:59:35 padler, you wanted to talk about identity of system actors and not just payees/payers 13:59:43 q+ to shift discussion to sprint 13:59:45 pat: we think of users and privacy but what i was meaning is a way to identity the actors 13:59:48 q+ to shift discussion to sprint planning 14:00:33 pat: unless we have a good idea of where we need credentials then we don't know how to build the rest of the scaffolding 14:00:56 ack manu 14:00:56 manu, you wanted to shift discussion to sprint and to shift discussion to sprint planning 14:01:03 pat: we can limt the scope to identifying actors not "human identities" 14:01:04 q? 14:01:25 manu: let's hope we can get through each version in a week 14:01:51 manu: esp becasue we are not planning to have more than a few paragraphs on each 14:02:06 manu: let's start there and then flesh it out based on input 14:02:18 manu: my biggest question is around pg 10 and 11 14:02:36 manu: I went through v1 and v2 and tried to translate to capabilities 14:02:47 manu: is this what everyone was expecting? 14:02:57 pat: +1 to the messaging 14:03:05 q+ to ask about "security" 14:03:23 pat: some feel like they are too specific to use cases 14:03:40 pat: we do need to tie them to use cases eventually but this is just the architecture 14:03:58 pat: we need to avoid context specific terms 14:04:22 manu: whats the right level of abstraction? 14:04:40 manu: are you saying merchant publication of offer of sale is too specific? 14:04:48 pat: let's not say "merchant" 14:05:09 pat: in the context of offer of sale, where do we need that to be realised? 14:05:40 +1 to offer of sale is outside of payment process 14:05:42 pat: are we saying that we need the agent to be capable of publishing an invoice that feels like outside the payment process 14:05:52 manu: yes, offer of sale is different to invoice 14:06:21 manu: it's like a beacon sending an offer message, or something in a web page that puts out an offer of sale 14:06:34 +1 to invoice being first step in payment process 14:06:59 manu: I'm struggling with the level of abstraction and where to put them in catagories 14:07:15 q? 14:07:18 manu: is security a good category, it seems broadly applicable 14:07:24 q+ 14:07:54 ack manu 14:07:54 manu, you wanted to ask about "security" 14:08:04 manu: there things in here (categories) that feel too broad to be categories 14:08:29 pat: I agree, how do we stick to DRY principles 14:09:05 pat: q for the group. how do we structure the capabilites? by capabilites or by interface where they are required 14:09:33 pat: eg- we deal with the collection of capabilites required by a specific payment agent interface 14:09:59 pat: a 4th section could be things that are required that are common (core capabilities) 14:10:14 +1 to group by interface to start with 14:10:21 ack AdrianHB 14:10:39 AdrianHB: Grouping by interface is a good idea, it'll help us understand what those interfaces are going to do. 14:10:59 AdrianHB: We don't have enough content down to start playing with this stuff. Let's start w/ what Manu said - put a paragraph down about each item. 14:11:08 AdrianHB: Let's start w/ a paragraph or two and let that fill out. 14:12:00 AdrianHB: Let's do that ASAP, then we can iterate - let's start putting down content. Let's have a look at capabilities are covered by level 1 and 2... go away and come back w/ 1-2 paragraphs that describe that capability. 14:12:14 +1 14:12:15 +1 to put some flesh to the sections first 14:13:00 manu: I made a pass at this already but prob missed some 14:13:13 manu: let's all just start adding capabilites 14:13:13 +1 14:13:14 q+ 14:13:40 AdrianHB: I agree - should we partition the list? Categorize by payment agent interface. 14:13:44 q? 14:13:48 ack jheuer 14:14:33 jheuer: I am willing to help and write but want to see what is there because I have some issues with the existign design of the agent 14:14:48 jheuer: I need to find my place to put my ideas in there 14:15:05 manu: there is a lot of overlap in discovery of credentials and agents 14:15:33 jheuer: i have an issue with agents accessing accounts vs credentials 14:15:51 manu: I think jheuer you have an issue with credentials being missing 14:15:54 q+ to think out loud about Jörg's question.. 14:16:15 manu: maybe jheuer should focus on credentials and we will work on capabailities 14:16:21 jheuer: +1 14:16:28 +1 to jheuer trying to fit credentials in - also to create a consistent picture for myself... 14:16:32 +1 to categorization by interface + core section 14:16:37 manu: +1 to categorise by interface 14:16:49 +1 14:16:49 +1 14:16:50 manu: let's just start, no need to seperate work yet 14:16:54 +1 14:17:19 q+ to say IT IS 15 MINUTES UNTIL THE END OF THE CALL! 14:17:23 ack padler 14:17:23 padler, you wanted to think out loud about Jörg's question.. 14:17:34 pat: i don't want anyoen to feel like we are driving a payment agent design that is different to what they believe is req 14:18:03 pat: is there a need for an identity agent (payments and identity are closely tied) 14:18:18 pat: they can be used independantly 14:18:33 pat: thinking out loud but feels like this is badly needed 14:18:48 q? 14:18:51 ack manu 14:18:51 manu, you wanted to say IT IS 15 MINUTES UNTIL THE END OF THE CALL! 14:18:55 q+ 14:18:56 topic: work process 14:19:06 q- 14:19:10 +1 14:19:14 manu: let's leave what we want to discuss at F2F until early June 14:19:42 I believe that credentials are there to de-couple identity and payment - and that's very useful to do 14:19:53 manu: wrt the manifesto I have been thinking on it 14:20:23 manu: I'd like to have something done or almost done by F2F 14:20:35 manu: let's talk manifest then tooling 14:20:38 q? 14:20:40 +1 14:20:54 pat: agree. let's get the vision statement in good shape 14:21:00 q+ 14:21:08 pat: q+ 14:21:33 pat: the whole IG will be there and others so we need to be able to show our vision and goals to them 14:21:33 q+ 14:21:49 pat: we need to prep as there is some educating to do 14:22:16 pat: ito the document flow I agree with manu. we need to do what is going to make it most productive 14:22:36 pat: google docs works for the core editors so we should just copy to the wiki every week or two 14:22:36 ack jheuer 14:23:00 jheuer: need to have vision asap 14:23:07 ack AdrianHB 14:23:43 Adrian: There is a vision document now - it's had input from Manu, Ian, and a number of other folks. 14:24:07 Adrian: There has been a bit of discussion around it on the mailing list - ported it to ReSpec format. I wanted to get it into a finished format as soon as possible, get people's input. 14:24:21 Adrian: There are not going to be major changes to it - didn't think there were going to be major changes to it. 14:24:28 q+ to talk about changes to Vision document. 14:24:53 http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/manifesto/index.html 14:25:05 Adrian: Vision document ^^ 14:26:05 Adrian: Why I think I'd like something published before face-to-face - I feel like the vision is valuable internally, but it's also extremely valuable to tell the rest of the world what we're doing what we're doing - get them to recognize or join the work. It feels like the face-to-face in June, Wall Street there - great opportunity to do event/publicity around the event. 14:26:10 I read this doc - but it's about the value web... aren't we talking about a payment vision? 14:26:15 Adrian: "This is our vision" is powerful - we want to realize this. 14:26:18 ack manu 14:26:18 manu, you wanted to talk about changes to Vision document. 14:26:38 manu: broadly agree with what you're saying 14:26:53 manu: don't think we'll get it published in time though 14:27:09 manu: let's put it out there as an editors draft and publicise it 14:27:33 q+ to clarift publishing process 14:27:56 q+ 14:28:08 manu: i think the document is valuable but pubishing to attract new people to the F2F is not possible as we're at capacity already 14:28:24 manu: also this is a long game so let's not worry about sensitivity 14:28:40 s/sensitivity/time sensitivity/ 14:28:58 manu: the thing that bothers me is the "value web" monker 14:29:05 s/monker/moniker/ 14:29:24 manu: the other word "manifesto" comes across as being too radical 14:29:43 manu: when people hear manifesto they think about some fringe radical movement 14:30:15 manu: this is not a fringe opinion, this is the standard position of the future of the Web 14:30:39 manu: i'd prefer something like Web Payments Vision but even payments is loaded 14:30:51 manu: the other thing that bothers me is the order of the principles 14:31:05 manu: lets put people first (W3C always does that) 14:31:24 manu: let's re-order them to talk about people impacting principles first 14:31:45 I understood 'value web' is the overall vision, payment, identity, credentials, etc. are special cases, right? 14:31:45 manu: finally, it needs a summary in the first page that encompasses all of the priciples 14:31:57 @jheur: yes 14:31:57 q? 14:32:00 q+ 14:32:11 manu: moving to respec was premature 14:32:24 manu: let's do g doc for not 14:32:26 ack AdrianHB 14:32:26 AdrianHB, you wanted to clarift publishing process 14:32:30 q+ 14:32:30 s/for not/for now/ 14:32:53 AdrianHB: Thanks for the input - useful feedback. Publishing process - I'm happy to not have it officially published. 14:34:16 AdrianHB: Still new to publication - frustrating to hear "won't have time before the face to face" - let's do it at the face-to-face. Don't want the excuse to be "it's too much work". 14:34:32 Manu: The issue was getting people to understand it before the face to face. 14:35:14 Adrian: That's fine - I'm happy w/ throwing some publicity at it, even if it's an Editor's Draft - I can get folks to put budget behind it. We can invite people to drinks, for example - this is the vision, this is the activity - invest in a little marketing on the thing. 14:35:22 q? 14:35:46 AdrianHB: I do want to get feedback on the vision document - will raise it again on Monday's call. 14:35:53 AdrianHB: Happy to proceed like this. 14:35:54 ack padler 14:36:11 pat: i like the idea of an ED that we can point to that is tangible 14:37:08 pat: q is (maybe needs to go to broader group) it feels like we're hitting at a number of core things for the web/internet 14:37:35 pat: so it's not just an internet for exchanging content, it's for exchanging value and identity 14:38:18 pat: if we just talk about it as "the Web" vs "the Value Web" then it sounds like a manifesto for the next version of the Web 14:38:53 pat: we shouldn't have a simialr vision from the credentials group 14:39:12 pat: if this is the next Web manifesto maybe we need to raise it at TPAC? 14:39:40 q? 14:39:46 ack jheuer 14:39:50 :) 14:39:53 pat: let's raise with Ian and others 14:40:21 jheuer: what I understood from the manifesto was an abstract ideal 14:40:25 Maybe it's just "W3" 14:40:36 jheuer: I would have worked in credentials and identity 14:41:17 jheuer: I feel the work we are doing are foundations for this vision 14:41:41 jheuer: but I don't think the pattern can be played down to payment or identity work 14:42:23 manu: if you drop the "value" then you have a description of the Web 14:42:33 manu: but payments don't have those properties today 14:42:53 manu: we are trying to make payments work like the Web 14:43:04 q+ 14:43:06 Trust, Identity and Payments are asymmetric and directional 14:43:10 manu: we are restating the things that makes the Web a success and say we want to apply these to payments 14:43:30 manu: this is very powerful 14:43:43 ack padler 14:43:46 ...and it's good that way, because it reflects reality and helps keep theings separate (privacy, etc.) 14:44:39 pat: when you deal with payments and identity they absolutely have to be idempotent 14:44:42 s/theings/things/ 14:45:22 pat: if we think of next v of the Web and payments and identity are critical things 14:45:35 pat: these are core pillars of the Web of the future 14:45:58 pat: this feels like a TPAC thing 14:46:03 manu: +1 14:46:50 I'd rather think that credentials could be the means to achieve these goals... 14:47:08 -Joerg 14:54:20 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:54:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/08-wpay-minutes.html manu 14:54:41 Present: Pat, Adrian, Manu, Joerg 14:55:11 -manu 14:55:13 -padler 14:55:19 -AdrianHB 14:55:21 T&S_WEBPYMT(WPAY_AGENT)9:30AM has ended 14:55:21 Attendees were padler, manu, AdrianHB, Joerg 14:55:45 Chair: Pat 14:56:38 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:56:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/08-wpay-minutes.html manu 18:07:19 IanJacobs has joined #wpay 18:08:13 IanJacobs has left #wpay 19:15:34 IanJacobs has joined #wpay 20:06:40 ShaneM_ has joined #wpay 20:19:28 ShaneM has joined #wpay