13:56:37 RRSAgent has joined #wpay 13:56:37 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/07/02-wpay-irc 13:56:40 Zakim has joined #wpay 14:00:14 AdrianHB has joined #wpay 14:00:41 present+ AdrianHB 14:00:45 anders has joined #wpay 14:00:59 Present+ Manu 14:06:33 present+ Ian 14:08:27 CyrilV has joined #wpay 14:09:03 Present+ Pat 14:09:09 agenda? 14:09:16 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Jul/0006.html 14:09:21 Meeting: Use Cases Task Force 14:09:28 Scribe: Ian 14:09:40 agenda+ Roadmap updates 14:09:44 agenda+ Use case updates 14:09:51 padler has joined #wpay 14:10:11 agenda+ deliverables 14:10:16 agenda+ capabilities 14:10:26 zakim, take up item 1 14:10:26 agendum 1. "Roadmap updates" taken up [from Ian] 14:10:51 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/roadmap/index.html 14:11:18 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/roadmap/index.html#goals 14:12:10 q+ to ask about clarifying scope of the document.. 14:12:14 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/roadmap/index.html#use-cases 14:12:33 Manu: Use cases link to in-scope use cases with notes 14:12:46 ack pa 14:12:46 padler, you wanted to ask about clarifying scope of the document.. 14:13:07 padler: One of the questions - the scope of the web payments roadmap...is this an IG deliverable? 14:13:12 ...that shows activities across different groups? 14:13:21 ...or is it a payment architecture WG framing? 14:13:39 ..if it's an IG deliverable, I think we should not have pulled out identity and credentials 14:13:42 q+ to respond to Web Payments only or broader. 14:13:55 +1 to making this the IG roadmap and keeping id and creds in scope 14:14:05 +1 to IG roadmap 14:14:19 ack man 14:14:19 manu, you wanted to respond to Web Payments only or broader. 14:14:45 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/roadmap/index.html#groups-and-scope 14:14:45 manu: I think the intent is to say "for web payments, here's what the IG sees is necessary across different was 14:14:51 May I ask about one item on http://www.w3.org/2015/06/payments-wg-charter.html ? 14:15:10 Anders, please send me email offlist 14:15:16 ok 14:15:23 q+ 14:15:44 ack Ian 14:16:00 Ian: I think we should have a new section 3 - that basically says "Other topics of importance to the Interest Group. 14:16:00 q+ to respond to question on how to reflect ID/Creds.. 14:16:12 ack pad 14:16:12 padler, you wanted to respond to question on how to reflect ID/Creds.. 14:16:13 Ian: It's hard to prioritize those, so it should be flat list. 14:17:30 padler: Maybe we could use the revised capability groups in 2.3 and provide a current status annotation. 14:17:36 q+ to give background on why document is organized like it is. 14:17:58 CyrilV has joined #wpay 14:18:14 ack manu 14:18:14 manu, you wanted to give background on why document is organized like it is. 14:18:24 manu: I did not update 2.3 since did not know yet what to put in there 14:18:34 ...what you are proposing sounds good, but I have a concern...we have a section called version 1 14:18:48 ...in that section we should focus on what the IG said is in version one 14:18:54 ..and the groups that will help make that happen 14:19:11 ...credentials and identity should be in the document but not in version 1 section 14:19:46 Manu: So after v1 we can say "related work happening in parallel" and list goals and groups 14:19:47 q+ 14:19:50 ack Ian 14:20:00 q+ to suggest we do away with versioning 14:20:09 Ian: I do think it belongs in a different section, I don't know if the title of the section should suggest a status that is "Parallel" 14:20:31 Ian: "Additional topics in discussion" - listing status will be useful to people. 14:20:46 Ian: Capabilities are distinct - how do you organize them - is it prioritized, is it a big integrated list. 14:20:55 Ian: We may not need to worry about bindings to capabilities in section 3 14:21:26 ack adr 14:21:26 AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest we do away with versioning 14:21:26 Ian: The other stuff, we may not know how they map to capabilities yet. We should worry less about it there. 14:21:44 AdrianHB: I think Ian has said something similar to my thought: do we need to talk about "version 1"? 14:22:08 ...we are splitting work based on capabilities 14:22:13 q+ Pat 14:22:23 q+ to mention that versioning is helpful. 14:22:44 Ian: I think versioning is helpful shorthand for "all the stuff we plan to do first" 14:22:47 ack Pat 14:22:49 IJ: I can live with another term than "version" but short label is useful 14:23:16 padler: the question I was after first --- it seems that when we say "version 1" .... Of what? The IG? or specific WG tasks? 14:23:19 (IJ: IG V1) 14:23:33 I think we're saying "version 1 of the IG work" 14:23:42 "version 1 of Web Payments" 14:24:00 ["Phase 1" could work instead of "Version 1"] 14:24:27 padler: from a roadmap perspective, IG is defining different scopes of what goes into the WG(s)..but the roadmap itself doesn't have a version 14:24:37 "Ready for standardization" 14:24:40 "Not ready for standardization" 14:24:44 q? 14:24:46 ack manu 14:24:46 manu, you wanted to mention that versioning is helpful. 14:24:50 q? 14:25:11 Ian: That's another way of doing the split - "things that are ready for standardization" vs. "not yet ready for standardization". 14:25:34 Ian: The roadmap has only ever been meant as a view to resources and planning - the capabilities document is more about "if you want to see the full picture, see the capabilities document". 14:25:44 Ian: I think we've tried to make the Roadmap be a layer to achieving that. 14:25:53 Ian: This is supposed to be the IG's view of the whole world of Web Payments. 14:26:07 it's to say that each WG may have a version.. 14:26:11 or state.. 14:26:29 Ian: "Show me the whole architecture - show me the ones that are in process..." 14:26:40 manu: I think I've got enough feedback at this point to rev the roadmap 14:26:46 q? 14:26:48 agenda? 14:27:59 Ian: The current charter is stabilizing - issue w/ charter for Monday. David Baron and folks at Apple seem to think that we need more than best practices for payment instrument registration - there needs to be a spec there. 14:28:10 q+ to say he thought we were proposing WebIDL for registration? 14:28:40 AdrianHB: I think the "best practices" framing came from earlier...but I also think we need a spec 14:28:45 ...about instrument registration 14:28:52 ...I think there should be a spec there 14:29:06 ...my thinking is that we should be prescribing what a payment scheme needs to have to be registrable 14:29:19 ..what does an instrument need to do to be registered 14:29:38 ...different schemes will work differently with different wallets..>I think we want to get away from that but it's a big piece of work 14:29:40 ack manu 14:29:40 manu, you wanted to say he thought we were proposing WebIDL for registration? 14:29:42 ack manu 14:29:52 manu: I thought we were suggesting some webidl around registration 14:30:12 AdrianHB: Would it be done through the browser? What about if I install the paypal app or a native wallet? 14:30:21 Manu: I think we should avoid the non-browser bit in V1 14:31:16 Ian: I'd like this conversation to happen on Monday - could you guys get to agreement w/ Magda/Sam/David on this, that'd be helpful. 14:31:48 Ian: I'd like charter to be stable on July 22nd timeframe. 14:32:15 WebIDL means that the browser is on the critical path also for v1, right? 14:33:19 q? 14:33:22 zakim, close item 1 14:33:22 agendum 1, Roadmap updates, closed 14:33:23 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:33:23 2. Use case updates [from Ian] 14:33:25 zakim, take up item 2 14:33:25 agendum 2. "Use case updates" taken up [from Ian] 14:34:53 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html 14:34:53 manu gets link 14:35:19 Manu: Two controversial changes 14:35:34 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#discovery-of-offer 14:35:37 1) I added "target version" annotation 14:36:05 ...that was to address comments that we were trying to boil the ocean 14:36:11 ..I hope this will address this 14:36:22 " A Target version which specifies the intended version of the Web Payments Architecture that will enable the use case. " 14:36:57 Ian: I like that - I would add a sentence after the docs on "target version" - add a sentence: "The IG expects that an incremental standardization of capabilities implied by these use cases" - not everything will happen at the same time. 14:37:20 IJ: Why did you think that was controversial? 14:37:21 q+ to talk about scope.. :) 14:37:35 Manu: We earlier had decided not to put version information 14:37:38 ack padler 14:37:38 padler, you wanted to talk about scope.. :) 14:37:43 q+ to talk about "version" 14:37:53 padler: I like understanding of which use cases are important 14:38:32 ...I think the versioning information is best if we somehow link them into another doc 14:39:30 ....to a picture of what goes where 14:39:49 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#delivery-of-receipt 14:39:49 ...Putting "Version 1" feels to me to be merging what is "for a WG" with something that is more like "how work is organized" 14:41:21 +1 14:41:30 Ian: About the word "version" and desirable linkage to bigger picture - if we want to take the Roadmap document seriously as a location to allocate/prioritize. We don't want to update the use cases that often (linkages) 14:41:51 Ian: Instead of target version - we could say "standardization in 2017" - maybe standardization status? 14:42:17 Ian: It is status information, "begin in 2015" and link to the roadmap - let people do indirection themselves. If we're organizing Roadmap - we can point to the roadmap. 14:42:24 q+ 14:42:35 Ian: I don't know what the right verbiage is from the use cases document - maybe integrate comments on the word "version" here. 14:42:36 ack Ian 14:42:36 Ian, you wanted to talk about "version" 14:42:48 Ian: It's useful, but it's redundant - makes it fragile - probably useful to readers 14:42:54 q+ to move on to next item. 14:43:00 ack padler 14:43:19 padler: I think that talking about use cases having components that are worked on in parallel by different groups... 14:43:27 ....I think that the use case catalog 14:43:40 ...to Ian's point..putting version information in there....as groups change and learn from their experience 14:43:47 ...if we have to update the use cases it can be tedious 14:44:02 ...if we can keep the use cases doc non time-based....and link into the IG roadmap 14:44:32 (So the alternative proposal is to have a big warning in section 1 about how not all this is happening at once) 14:45:04 q+ 14:45:28 padler: I think we are mixing here WG and IG deliverables 14:45:34 manu: I have a pretty good idea of changes I can make 14:45:37 ack manu 14:45:37 manu, you wanted to move on to next item. 14:46:05 ack Ian 14:46:29 IJ: We could put a big warning at the front "look at the roadmap" 14:46:42 Manu: We had that and it wasn't enough...so propose we try something else with more linkages 14:46:55 ...and try to reduce the brittleness of those links 14:47:06 Ian: Maybe we can have a big block - at the top? 14:47:07 zakim, close this item 14:47:07 agendum 2 closed 14:47:08 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:47:08 3. deliverables [from Ian] 14:47:11 zakim, take up item 3 14:47:11 agendum 3. "deliverables" taken up [from Ian] 14:47:30 zakim, take up item 2 14:47:30 agendum 2. "Use case updates" taken up [from Ian] 14:47:40 Manu: the other thing I removed was to remove links to the goals 14:47:47 ...it was causing confusion and not adding a lot 14:48:06 ...also, linkages were not specific enough 14:48:22 ..so while I agree it would be good to say how use cases achieve goals, I don't think that document is quite there yet 14:48:32 ...when I removed goals, didn't seem to have much of an effect 14:48:33 q+ 14:48:38 ack Ian 14:49:09 Ian: The reason I wanted Goals in here is so we could start from a high-level thing and justify why we're including things. I think the Goals have merged into the Vision. Maybe that's how we want to map things. I found Goals not adding a lot to the document. 14:49:14 q+ to suggest tying it to vision. 14:49:23 q- 14:49:38 Ian: Not sure tie to Vision is necessary right now. 14:49:48 Ian: We don't say much about Regulation... 14:50:11 Ian: I think for Regulators reading this document, let's do tie-ins to regulatory compliance. 14:50:15 q+ to talk to regulatory. 14:50:20 ack manu 14:50:20 manu, you wanted to talk to regulatory. 14:50:34 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#how-this-document-is-organized 14:50:35 manu: I half did something 14:51:07 ...I added the label "Regulatory" to the dictionary 14:51:12 ...but didn't add any actual annotations 14:51:41 IJ: I'm fine to have removed goals annotations 14:51:48 zakim, take up item 3 14:51:48 agendum 3. "deliverables" taken up [from Ian] 14:52:03 Manu: I propose for next deliverables: 14:52:11 - within next month a new WD of the use cases 14:52:28 (IJ: +1 since it would be good to have fresh use cases prior to WG charter) 14:52:36 ....including AML / KYC use cases 14:52:47 [IJ suggests also we figure out how to include Alibaba use cases] 14:53:17 ...also there's a KYC use case for doing wire transfers over the web 14:53:51 ...Arie at the FTF meeting also said the entire wealth management industry tied to banking and finance ... you have to have some kind of verifiable way of identifying people 14:54:36 Ian: If possible, it would be good to have it by early August. When we do call for review. 14:54:50 Ian: I'd rather have it easier to do and get it out by July. 14:55:02 Manu: 10-12 hours of work 14:55:31 Ian: I don't think we require WG consensus for this rev - Chairs could make the call. 14:55:46 zakim, close item 3 14:55:46 agendum 3, deliverables, closed 14:55:47 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 14:55:47 4. capabilities [from Ian] 14:55:50 zakim, take up item 4 14:55:50 agendum 4. "capabilities" taken up [from Ian] 14:56:04 rrsagent, make minutes 14:56:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/02-wpay-minutes.html Ian 14:56:07 rrsagent, set logs member 14:56:26 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/UpdatedCapabilityGroups 14:56:33 padler: Who do we quickly cover these with the group? 14:56:45 ...if we can talk about this and somehow link the picture and definitions to specific WGs 14:57:15 ...we could identify streams of work for each block 14:57:29 q+ to provide feedback. 14:57:33 ...it would be great to say "we need a CG around coupons" or "a recruiting effort around loyalty" 14:59:00 manu: Word "ownership" is a concern to me 14:59:08 padler: maybe we just merge middle 2 bubbles 14:59:31 ...so we have identity + accounts/clearing/settlement + commerce 14:59:47 rrsagent, make minutes 14:59:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/02-wpay-minutes.html Ian 14:59:52 ciao 15:00:04 scribenick: manu 15:00:23 Pat: Maybe we need a bigger bubble to bind "Accounts and Ownership" and "Clearing and Settlement" 15:00:41 Pat: Middle section is well taken care of - we have IGs, WGs, and CGs doing work. Here's where those things are at... what are the boundaries? 15:01:05 Pat: Workgroup developing charters - people could contribute their labor to that part. 15:01:51 Manu: Yeah, middle bit is the only problematic one... they kind of all go together, hmm not really. 15:02:05 Pat: Yeah, we have a CG focused just on Clearing and Settlement. 15:02:28 Pat: You could have a WG accountable for both - maybe you have one Task Force on Clearing and Settlement, and one Task Force working on Accounts and Ownership. 15:03:21 Manu: it feels like 'ownership' touches a bunch of these things. 15:04:15 Pat: You need programmatic access to accounts and ownership - going back to resource constraints w/in W3C - one of the things we can raise w/ IG on Monday, if we put bounding box around it - we have a broad Web Payments WG - that has Task Forces for Accounts/Ownership and Clearing/Settlement 15:04:31 Pat: Then you have one group focused on Identity/Credentials 15:07:36 Manu: Ok, so we have a "Web Payments WG" - and that contains several Task Forces / Community Groups: "Accounts and Ownership Task Force", "Clearing and Settlement Community Group", "Payments Task Force" 15:07:58 Pat: if we're talking about a Web Payments WG - a Web-based clearing/settlement scheme, if it's something different, that may fall under Web Payments WG? 15:08:10 pat: The WG would go back to IG and talk about how Task Forces are organized. 15:08:25 Pat: The capability groups are just a way to compartmentalize scope for WGs. 15:08:34 Pat: I can see us putting a WG behind each one of those things. 15:10:54 Pat: Maybe you change purview of Web Payments IG to show map of the work. Identity and Credentials have the Credentials CG recruiting for full fledged WG. 15:11:17 Pat: We should've been a Web Commerce IG... that would've had Identity in the scope (clearly) 15:12:09 Pat: So, that's where I was going w/ comments last week. This diagram, what's in scope on definitions on IG perspective, let's us focus on who is doing the work - put use case in place to "person walking into store" or "send a payment request from payee to payer" - great middle box on diagram... IG would have a master list of which use cases link up to broader commerce scenarios. 15:12:49 Manu: It's clear in my mind what we should do at this point w/ the groups. 15:13:35 Pat: Maybe I should update the diagram and send it out - don't want to run afoul of W3M. What we're suggesting is Payments IG will coordinate the work of multiple WGs that would be chartered. 15:14:25 Pat: If you're going to start working on docs, I can tweak this particular picture: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/UpdatedCapabilityGroups 15:14:52 Pat: If you can send me back thoughts - I could get stuff out late tonight. 15:14:56 Manu: I can take a look at it tonight. 15:16:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:16:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/02-wpay-minutes.html manu 15:16:41 rrsagent, make logs public 15:32:30 I have to leave, bye 16:36:09 dbaron has joined #wpay 18:17:16 yaso has joined #wpay 19:09:22 yaso has joined #wpay 19:33:24 yaso has joined #wpay 20:32:58 dbaron has joined #wpay 20:44:38 IanJacobs has joined #wpay 20:44:42 IanJacobs has left #wpay 20:48:09 Srikanth has joined #wpay