16:58:05 RRSAgent has joined #wpwg 16:58:05 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/07-wpwg-irc 16:58:07 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:58:07 Zakim has joined #wpwg 16:58:09 Zakim, this will be 16:58:09 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 16:58:10 Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference 16:58:10 Date: 07 January 2016 16:58:39 agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160107 16:58:41 agenda? 16:58:46 agenda+ Flows 16:58:52 agenda+ Issue management 16:58:57 scribe: Ian 16:59:33 zkoch has joined #wpwg 16:59:40 Present+ zkoch 16:59:44 Present+ nicktr 17:00:14 present+ Ian 17:00:15 present+ MattC 17:00:20 zakim, who's here? 17:00:20 Present: zkoch, nicktr, Ian, MattC 17:00:22 On IRC I see zkoch, Zakim, RRSAgent, nicktr, Ryladog, Laurent, AdrianHB, shepazu, MattS, manu, adrianba, ijmad, dwim_, davidillsley, slightlyoff, dveditz, mkwst, collier-matthew, 17:00:22 ... schuki, dlongley, trackbot, Ian, wseltzer 17:00:27 present+ Matt 17:00:30 present+ Katie 17:00:34 present+ Cyril 17:00:38 present+ Laurent 17:00:43 zakim, who's here? 17:00:44 Present: zkoch, nicktr, Ian, MattC, Katie, Cyril, Laurent 17:00:45 On IRC I see zkoch, Zakim, RRSAgent, nicktr, Ryladog, Laurent, AdrianHB, shepazu, MattS, manu, adrianba, ijmad, dwim_, davidillsley, slightlyoff, dveditz, mkwst, collier-matthew, 17:00:45 ... schuki, dlongley, trackbot, Ian, wseltzer 17:00:58 present+ MattS 17:01:09 present+ Adrian 17:01:12 Present+ AdrianHB 17:01:21 present- Adrian 17:01:23 Present+ Manu 17:01:25 zakim, who's here? 17:01:25 Present: zkoch, nicktr, Ian, MattC, Katie, Cyril, Laurent, MattS, AdrianHB, Manu 17:01:27 On IRC I see zkoch, Zakim, RRSAgent, nicktr, Ryladog, Laurent, AdrianHB, shepazu, MattS, manu, adrianba, ijmad, dwim_, davidillsley, slightlyoff, dveditz, mkwst, collier-matthew, 17:01:27 ... schuki, dlongley, trackbot, Ian, wseltzer 17:01:34 rrsagent, make minutes 17:01:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/07-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 17:01:39 rrsagent, set logs public 17:01:41 present+ MattS 17:02:20 zakim, who's here? 17:02:20 Present: zkoch, nicktr, Ian, MattC, Katie, Cyril, Laurent, MattS, AdrianHB, Manu 17:02:22 On IRC I see zkoch, Zakim, RRSAgent, nicktr, Ryladog, Laurent, AdrianHB, shepazu, MattS, manu, adrianba, ijmad, dwim_, davidillsley, slightlyoff, dveditz, mkwst, collier-matthew, 17:02:22 ... schuki, dlongley, trackbot, Ian, wseltzer 17:02:24 present+ shepazu 17:02:26 CyrilV has joined #wpwg 17:02:58 Present+ Cyril Vignet 17:03:39 present+ AdrianBA 17:03:58 VincentK has joined #wpwg 17:04:26 dveditz has left #wpwg 17:04:33 Topic: Welcome back! 17:04:44 nicktr: Hope you had a good break! 17:04:47 zakim, take up item 1 17:04:47 agendum 1. "Flows" taken up [from Ian] 17:05:10 Reminder - today is the deadline for flows that we would take forward 17:05:29 present+ VincentK 17:05:31 -> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Flows Flows 17:05:48 nicktr: Want to document the ones we have and whether sufficient, then to look at one and how to use it. 17:06:16 ....AOB besides flows and issues management? 17:06:21 present+ schuki 17:06:21 [None uttered] 17:06:34 present+ dlongley 17:06:46 MattS: Here's what we've captured so far 17:06:49 q+ to provide an update on the flows I have been documenting when Matts is done 17:07:05 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Flows 17:07:06 Flows page is here: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Flows 17:07:24 Here are the ones we have today: 17:07:24 Credit/Debit/Charge Cards Standard, 3DS, Tokenisation 17:07:24 PSP Hosted Payment 17:07:24 General Redirect 17:07:25 SEPA Credit Transfer Raw , Web Initiated via PSP 17:07:27 SEPA Direct Debit 17:07:29 PayPal 17:07:33 Masterpass 17:07:33 Apple Pay Native-App 17:07:37 Realtime Payment 17:07:39 Cross Border Credit Transfer 17:07:41 ===== 17:07:48 Here are the ones we had commitments for but did not yet get: 17:07:51 BitCoin - @adrianhopebailie 17:07:56 Samsung Pay - @mountie 17:07:56 Escrow Payment - @mountie 17:08:07 ==== 17:08:11 There are also two nearly done: 17:08:16 AliPay - Zephyr (complete, but needs laying out in PlantUML) 17:08:20 Bank Supplied Wallet - Laurent (complete, but needs checking into GitHub) 17:08:23 ====== 17:08:39 [IJ: Kudos to all the flows creators] 17:08:47 dlehn has joined #wpwg 17:08:55 MattS: We may continue to refine the flows over the next week to be easier to compare 17:09:04 ...we are still working on standardizing some vocabulary issues 17:09:21 ...we'd like to refine those we have over the coming weeks 17:10:11 ...I've asked Zephyr to turn his into PlantUML, and I should be able to check in Laurent's bank supplied wallet. 17:10:25 q+ to ask that since stuff didn't hit the deadline, that it's out for 1.0? 17:10:27 q+ 17:10:36 ack AdrianHB 17:10:36 AdrianHB, you wanted to provide an update on the flows I have been documenting when Matts is done 17:10:38 ack AdrianHB 17:10:50 AdrianHB: I have pulled in Laurent's request...so his should be available now. 17:11:12 AdrianHB: I've also put in 2 bitcoin flows. 17:11:22 ...one p2p scenario, and one representative of the bitcoin protocol 17:11:31 q- 17:11:45 ...it also occurred to me late in the game that I should probably document at least one inter ledger flow (from the CG work) 17:11:51 q+ to ask what happens to flows that we discover in time? 17:11:53 ...there are a few use cases that we could document. 17:12:16 MattS: I defer to our chairs on whether to accept the additional flows. 17:12:28 nicktr: First, to Matt and all contributors - THANK YOU 17:12:42 nicktr: Are we happy to accept the bitcoin flows (even if not yet reviewed)? 17:12:48 rouslan has joined #wpwg 17:12:53 Happy to accept both flows in 17:13:11 Present+ Rouslan 17:13:29 zkoch has joined #wpwg 17:13:47 +1 to extend the deadline for Samsung Pay and Escrow (will try to do escrow now that I'm on a plantUML roll) 17:14:01 PROPOSED: 17:14:34 * extend deadline to 11 January for samsung + escrow + interledger 17:14:46 +1 17:14:47 +1 17:14:48 +1 17:14:48 +1 17:14:49 +1 17:14:52 +1 17:14:53 +1 17:14:53 +1 17:14:55 +1 17:14:56 + 17:14:59 SO RESOLVED 17:15:03 +1 17:15:13 q? 17:15:16 ack me 17:15:31 kris has joined #wpwg 17:15:32 nicktr: So how do we use the flows? 17:15:40 q? 17:15:41 q+ 17:15:56 MattS: See emerging observations from using the flows to evaluate the specs 17:15:58 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Emerging-Flows-Task-Force-Observations 17:16:24 Example, 3DS 1.0 17:16:46 ack manu 17:16:46 manu, you wanted to ask what happens to flows that we discover in time? 17:16:58 Manu: I am a bit concerned about drawing a line to say "no more flows" 17:17:06 ...I don't see a reason to do that. 17:17:19 +1 to manu 17:17:30 q+ to characterize what I think we mean 17:17:48 q+ 17:17:56 MattS: My understanding was that this was the deadline for flows to be met in the FPWD. 17:18:35 nicktr: I would like to use the flows that we've got, but if something comes up and there's consensus to add, then we should add them. 17:18:58 +1 to needing consensus on adding any new flows after this 17:19:14 q- 17:19:23 adrianHB: This is a prioritization, not a restriction 17:19:40 ...so going forward there is a higher bar for getting your flow in scope 17:19:43 q? 17:19:53 manu: That satisfied me. 17:19:56 ack CyrilV 17:19:57 +1 to requiring consensus for new flows, good to have a clear list to at least get to FPWD 17:20:02 +1 - get consensus on adding new flows, but don't restrict flows to just the ones we have right now. 17:20:36 CyrilV: On the question of "how to use the flows" do we have to factorize the presentation of the flows? there are different details? Part of some is in clearing and settlement. 17:20:37 +1 on rationalisation the level of details 17:20:52 CyrilV: So when looking at the flows I think we should normalize them somewhat 17:20:53 +1 17:21:12 +1 on normalisation both on format, form and details 17:21:14 MattS: I think there is some refactoring necessary. that should be driven by reviews of these flows by this WG 17:21:26 +1 to matts - yes, the next step is for us to normalise the flows 17:21:32 q- 17:21:58 MattS: I am awaiting from Vincent some ISO20022 to help refactor 17:22:02 q+ 17:22:09 yes! 17:22:31 ack VincentK 17:22:40 mattS: I don't think we have resolved our vocabulary yet within this group, so I propose for the flows that we use ISO20022 until it doesn't meet our needs and then we make up our own terms 17:22:56 VincentK: I am preparing an overview of actors and business models to help harmonize and rationalize the flows in the same way 17:23:03 nicktr: Thank you, Vincent. 17:23:21 nicktr: I would like to ask people in the group to read the flows. 17:23:28 q+ to ask at the appropriate time for commitments to review 17:23:37 ack Ian 17:23:37 Ian, you wanted to ask at the appropriate time for commitments to review 17:23:42 q+ to discuss vocab from our architecture vs ISO20022 17:23:45 Ian: I know we want to get to the topic of how to use the flows. 17:24:02 Ian: I think if people concretely sign up for flow reviews, distribute across group - that'll be helpful. 17:24:14 Ian: Let's have people sign up to review specific flows, rather than having a general invitation. 17:24:24 q+ 17:24:45 q- question was on mechanism on how to provide the comments 17:24:59 q- 17:25:03 ack AdrianHB 17:25:03 AdrianHB, you wanted to discuss vocab from our architecture vs ISO20022 17:25:11 AdrianHB: let's use github to record the actions 17:25:26 ...we would add them to issues list, put under flows, label as actions, and assign to a person 17:25:33 Wanted to ask on the mechanism on how to provide the comments 17:25:41 +1 github issues 17:26:32 q? 17:26:35 IJ: I suggest we record here in the minutes who is doing what. 17:26:42 ..and then record in github later 17:26:50 q? 17:27:32 AdrianHB: MattS mentioned vocab and using ISO20022. I want to ensure we differentiate between the type of information in the flow diagrams from the vocabulary in the payment architecture document; they are disjoint 17:27:59 ...we'll find as MattS says that when we document the flows (with ISO20022 terms) we will find that there are technical components that are not accommodated and we can use the stuff we've put together. 17:28:31 MattS: Yes, I think there will be things that don't fit into ISO20022. In some cases, we will want to extend the vocabulary. And in some cases we will want to do our own terms (e.g., around tech architecture). I think we may also find edge cases. 17:29:05 ...Vincent and Kris also have indicated they are open to extending ISO20022 based on our input 17:29:11 q+ 17:29:13 q+ 17:29:19 ack kris 17:29:23 q- 17:29:52 kris: ISO20022 is open about definitions...goal is to have mutual understanding. When you have a specific flow your definitions may need to be further specified... 17:30:12 ...we have various ways to do this (including subclasses and synonyms) 17:30:47 nicktr: Any concerns about proceeding: 17:30:53 - Use for flows ISO20022 where we can 17:31:07 - For technical components expect to use WG terms 17:31:21 - Work with ISO20022 RA for any updates they would need based on our experience 17:31:44 +1 17:31:46 ...and any conflicts or overlaps we bring to this WG for discussion 17:31:50 +1 17:31:53 +1 17:32:03 +1 to what Nick suggested - use ISO20022 terminology in flows where possible, use technical vocabulary for specs (if common term doesn't exist in ISO20022), and work w/ ISO20022 RA for any issues that come up. 17:32:06 +1 17:32:07 +1 17:32:14 SO RESOLVED 17:32:58 q? 17:33:05 AdrianHB: MattS mentioned "payment method" which I think will be in the grey area...let's pick this up as an agenda item on our next call 17:33:14 (IJ suggests that people work on this in the task force) 17:33:22 (And bring a proposal to the WG) 17:34:10 +1 to do refactoring before reviews. 17:34:16 MattS: Regarding review of the flows, I suggest that the flows task force do some refactoring before the next level of review. 17:34:22 +1 to refactoring before reviews 17:34:28 ...but get people to sign up NOW 17:34:49 nicktr: +1 to the proposal and to getting people to sign up now 17:35:11 MattS: Flows may become available in a staggered fashion 17:35:24 MattS: +1 to getting volunteers sooner 17:35:29 Topic: Using the Flows 17:35:30 q? 17:35:36 q+ 17:35:39 MattS: On emerging observations 17:35:39 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Emerging-Flows-Task-Force-Observations 17:36:04 MattS: I suggest that we continue to augment this page as we get more observations 17:36:13 ...so regarding 3DS 1.0...for example 17:36:52 MattS: I'm open to suggestions on how to expand this page. 17:37:28 ...I think our wiki issues are falling into broad categories 17:37:42 tag issues w/ 'flows' 17:37:51 See also "Key Differences Between Current Proposals to WG" 17:37:56 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Key-Differences-Between-Current-Proposals-to-WG 17:37:57 q? 17:37:58 ack cy 17:38:00 ack CyrilV 17:38:07 +1 to manu (I have created a Flows milestone) 17:38:45 CyrilV: It would be useful to find the "most template-like" flow as one to help people understand the flows 17:39:17 Ian: For educational purposes, if there is a flow that is representative - share that flow, that'll help people understand flows - is that what you meant? 17:39:27 CyrilV: It was not the most template-like. 17:39:36 Ian: If you can find the "mean" of the other ones - what is it that you intended? 17:39:43 MattS: I don't think it's possible to find a "mean" flow 17:40:02 I agree - credit card standard flow. 17:40:03 ...but I think we should do the standard credit card flow 17:40:09 +1 17:40:09 sounds good to me 17:40:09 ...we should verify that it fits perfectly 17:40:19 +1 to MattS - let's focus on credit card standard flow. 17:40:21 ..and that would help us identify the flows that don't fit as well 17:40:24 (as a first cut) 17:40:26 CyrilV: I'm ok with that. 17:40:45 CyrilV: If I wanted to get more into the SEPA credit transfer, it's good for me to have an example to use for level of detail, etc. 17:41:02 (Sounds like the task force should come up with some guidance on that) 17:41:11 CyrilV: I'll use the card flow for guidance for now 17:41:33 q+ 17:41:34 MattS: One thing I did for SEPA Credit Transfer, I took Cyril's "Raw" flow and I added the wrapper around it to make it a web payments flow... 17:41:40 http://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/proxy?fmt=svg&src=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/webpayments/gh-pages/PaymentFlows/CreditTransfer/WebInitiatedSEPACreditTransfer-Current.pml 17:42:13 MattS: What I plan to do in reviewing the other flows...I want to refactor the ones I authored to fit into the pattern of "checkout basket" 17:42:14 q? 17:42:31 MattS: I'm open to help on this 17:42:38 q+ to say how he expects to use the flows. 17:43:02 * bye All, I have to quit the meeting 17:43:05 Laurent: I volunteer to help MattS 17:43:24 VincentK: In the flows I documented, we have the first step (checkout, payment obligation) 17:43:31 ...that step establishes the contract between merchant and customer 17:43:55 ack VincentK 17:44:01 ...there are various other flows behind the scene when the contract is established, but the web payments are linked 17:44:09 ...you need a certain number of elements in the payment obligation however 17:44:30 ...so there are "two types of flows" as Cyril mentioned, and they are linked together. We should consider one in the scope of the other. 17:44:32 MattS: I agree. 17:44:46 ...i am seeking to clarify this for our audience in the refactoring 17:44:57 ...so maybe the task force should review what I've done with the SEPA flow and see if it's uesful 17:45:05 nicktr: +1 17:45:06 q? 17:45:27 ack manu 17:45:27 manu, you wanted to say how he expects to use the flows. 17:45:43 manu: MattS I want to figure out how to help but don't yet know how to do it yet. 17:46:00 ...I want to run the credit card flow through the CG proposal and document it somewhere....where do you want the evaluation documented? 17:46:20 MattS: Let me think about that. I am supportive of that...let's chat offline about how to do this and share with others those thoughts. 17:46:33 q? 17:46:36 q+ to suggest comparisons with proposals are done against the proposals 17:46:50 ack AdrianHB 17:46:50 AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest comparisons with proposals are done against the proposals 17:47:16 AdrianHB: I think that if anyone wants to use those flows as a tool against a proposal, then output should be captured against the proposal instead of the WG issues list. 17:47:31 ...so the WG issue list remains for meta/high-level issues 17:47:36 ...and those issues can reference proposals. 17:47:51 not my proposal - the Web Payments CG's proposal :) 17:47:56 ...so Manu's evaluation of the CG proposal should go into the wiki of the CG or some artifact tied to the CG's proposal 17:48:01 q? 17:48:20 Summary 17:48:29 - The TF will refactor the flows 17:48:35 - We expect a few more flows by 11 January. 17:48:55 ACTION: nicktr to ping Mountie about samsung and escrow flows 17:48:56 Created ACTION-11 - Ping mountie about samsung and escrow flows [on Nick Telford-Reed - due 2016-01-14]. 17:49:30 - MattS will inform volunteers when a flow is ready for review 17:49:49 - MattS and Manu will chat about documenting evaluations 17:50:36 - Second flow we'll look at in refactoring is credit transfer 17:50:43 - we'll use terminology as resolved above 17:50:59 - Laurent, AdrianHB will work with MattS and TF on refactoring 17:51:21 s/on refactoring/on leveling as part of refactoring 17:51:24 ...and Vincent as well 17:51:34 WHO WISHES TO VOLUNTEER? 17:51:36 q+ to ask what the difference is between refactoring and levelling? 17:52:02 q- 17:52:06 manu - credit card 17:52:25 nick will do PSP, general redirect, bitcoin 17:52:32 ian - 3DS 17:52:34 adrianhb - 3DS 17:53:05 dlongley - PayPal 17:54:01 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/49 17:54:10 AdrianHB and Matt will work on how to document who has volunteered 17:55:06 AdrianHB: We could even use more specific labels like "flow review' 17:55:07 q? 17:55:15 zakim, close this item 17:55:15 agendum 1 closed 17:55:16 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 17:55:16 2. Issue management [from Ian] 17:55:20 zakim, take up item 2 17:55:20 agendum 2. "Issue management" taken up [from Ian] 17:55:33 AdrianHB: I spent a bit of time thinking about this over the vacation 17:55:53 ...some ideas are experimental (e.g., "action" label) ... others based on what other WGs are doing and W3C Team guidance 17:56:01 http://www.w3.org/2015/Talks/1217-github-w3c/#19 17:56:07 ...see the presentation by PLH 17:56:17 ...W3C is building some nice tooling that integrates well with github 17:56:23 ...e.g., a dashboard 17:56:48 q? 17:56:52 shepazu: I'm working on a dashboard thing...I'm hoping to be done early next week 17:56:56 ...let's chat 17:57:01 I was forking: https://github.com/w3c/webperf-dashboard 17:57:20 ...uses some JS to query Apis and dump data on a page 17:57:31 shepazu: That's what I'm doing as well..I'm working with PLH to get it working 17:57:41 AdrianHB: I will do nothing further then until I hear from you 17:57:44 q+ 17:58:04 AdrianHB: So we will be using github to make progress on our issues list 17:58:12 That's probably because we are not making progress on the issue list we have :P 17:58:20 ...on the one hand I want to say "let's be patient as we have proposals that are still being iterated" 17:58:21 q- 17:58:34 ...it may be frustrating to not have decisions yet 17:58:41 ..but the discussions are already driving changes to the proposals 17:58:48 ...doing the proposals is helping us to surface the questions 17:58:57 ...so my proposal is that we continue to capture big questions in the issues list 17:59:34 ...we tag them as questions (I have a "milestone" of our next call)...if you think that an issue is ready to be discussed in a call either because there's a proposal that is likely to get consensus, or it needs discussion for other reason, we can look at the tags and build the agenda 17:59:46 ...so please "label something as a question" and add a milestone for discussion 17:59:46 q+ 18:00:27 ack Ian 18:00:31 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/How-the-Working-Group-works 18:01:04 IJ: Has this been documented yet? 18:01:07 AdrianHB: Not yet 18:01:21 +1 18:01:37 IJ: Please put in the how we work page as "proposed" 18:01:39 AdrianHB: Will do 18:01:43 Topic: Next meeting 18:01:46 21 January 18:01:50 rrsagent, make minutes 18:01:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/07-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 18:01:53 rrsagent, set logs public 18:02:45 zkoch has joined #wpwg 18:09:31 zkoch has joined #wpwg 18:19:39 zkoch has joined #wpwg