15:49:52 RRSAgent has joined #wpay-digitaloffers 15:49:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/16-wpay-digitaloffers-irc 15:54:15 dezell has joined #wpay-digitaloffers 15:59:51 ed_ has joined #wpay-digitaloffers 15:59:57 present+ 16:00:55 ltoth has joined #wpay-digitaloffers 16:01:18 present+ Ian 16:01:24 present+ ltoth 16:01:59 agenda? 16:02:03 zakim, who's here? 16:02:03 Present: ed_, Ian, ltoth 16:02:05 On IRC I see ltoth, ed_, dezell, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian, manu 16:02:05 present+ Manu 16:02:07 present+ DavidE 16:02:21 agenda+ Joerg's presentation 16:02:30 agenda+ Simon's comments 16:02:38 agenda+ Any other outreach updates? 16:06:29 agenda? 16:06:34 zakim, take up item 1 16:06:34 agendum 1. "Joerg's presentation" taken up [from Ian] 16:06:43 ltoth: Things looked pretty good. Any questions or comments? 16:06:43 jheuer has joined #wpay-digitaloffers 16:06:59 jheuer: one question is whether to include new topic 16:10:08 q+ 16:11:34 q+ 16:12:23 I propose to add a sentence to "controls on redemption": 16:12:24 How will information about controls be communicated to users (since no longer printed on coupons)? 16:12:38 And thus not adding a new discussion topic 16:12:40 + 16:12:42 +1 16:13:56 ack dezell 16:13:59 ack ltoth 16:14:06 PROPOSED: 16:14:06 Is anything new required for the Web to ensure that constraints can be communicated to users (since no longer printed on coupons)? 16:14:16 +1 16:14:26 +1 16:14:38 q+ before I leave 16:14:41 +1 16:14:44 q+ 16:14:58 ltoth: Should we put list of people lined up to support us? 16:15:01 q+ 16:15:07 ack de 16:15:28 Ian already mentioned the problem - I can add that over the weekend 16:16:08 Yes, we should not name them if we haven't asked permission yet. 16:16:51 IJ: Let's not mention orgs by name as "having committed to do something" 16:18:04 q? 16:18:11 q+ 16:18:18 ack Ian 16:18:33 ack dezell 16:18:36 q? 16:18:50 dezell: We are allocating extra time at the FTF meeting for this topic 16:19:06 IJ summary of changes to deck he's hearing: 16:19:14 1) Remove "proposed discussion topic" from Joerg 16:19:25 2) Update "Controls on distribution" slide since sentence added 16:19:36 ...indeed probably need to refresh the content if we make other changes 16:19:46 3) See email for a proposed new slide on "Outreach pre-TPAC" 16:19:57 present+ jheuer 16:20:17 q+ 16:21:12 IJ: Feel free to send the deck to the public list and I'll link from the agenda 16:21:21 jheuer: Note that I adjusted expression of topics to shorten them 16:21:25 ack jheuer 16:21:53 IJ: I suggest a short note in the deck to say "Content adapted from wiki" 16:22:01 zakim, take up item 2 16:22:01 agendum 2. "Simon's comments" taken up [from Ian] 16:22:16 Ian: One of the responses involved some interesting questions. 16:22:39 Ian: Their own personal responses reading the wiki, trying to see if any of those result in changes to the wiki. 16:23:05 ltoth: Simon Stock, Executive Director of IFSF 16:23:32 Ian: Simons says: Coupons - does this mean all forms of offers, ... 16:23:47 Ian: I don't think additional changes are necessary - do we want to add discounts to top of wiki? 16:24:04 q+ 16:24:18 IJ: Proposed to add "discounts" to the top of the wiki 16:24:25 ltoth: B1G1 is Buy One Get One Free 16:24:35 ack jheuer 16:24:45 jheuer: Is this a technical question? 16:24:52 Ian: I think the answer is that this is in scope of discussion. 16:25:00 Ian: I don't see why we wouldn't talk about discounts. 16:25:02 q+ 16:25:11 jack ed 16:25:12 manu: +1, we should be able to talk about discounts. 16:25:14 jack ed 16:25:15 ack ed_ 16:25:19 IJ: I think in any case it's in scope for the CG 16:25:46 Ed: Getting the discount at the point of sale, it's different slightly, so discussion should be on the table. 16:26:01 Ian: We should capture how people are thinking about these things, these are not synonyms for the same thing. 16:26:17 Ian: Next one, Simon says: Physical coupons ... fulfilled over the Web. 16:27:15 Ian: I think that statement is encompassed by our work. We talk about ... hmm, debating. To the extent that we build this stuff into mobile applications. We're W3C, so we don't deal with paper, but getting from paper to digital - suggesting no change for this. 16:27:41 Ian: Simon said: THere is an additional group of topics that should deal with themes - how the retailer has to handle offers in their site systems and their accounting. 16:28:22 q+ 16:28:24 Ian: I question the scope of that one, if it's an internal processing thing, it may not be about interoperability - at this time, I would not add a new category, but we should flesh out whether we should have extra internal things wrt. interoperability. 16:28:26 jack ed 16:28:27 Ian: Propose no change here. 16:28:29 ack ed 16:28:42 Ed: I agree with Simon's observation, it's a reality on a retailer side. 16:29:09 Ed: How I want a coupon to act might be on the front-end of it. Is it an expensed coupon? It goes to the question of settlement. 16:29:21 Ian: We will return to that in the context of CG discussion. 16:29:31 Ian: Simon says: Settlement could be in realtime or batch process. 16:29:44 q+ 16:29:46 q+ 16:29:54 ack lto 16:29:58 Ian: We didn't say anything about batch because the goal is to move to realtime funding. Batch may be the old way? Or do we mention batch? 16:30:19 ltoth: That's an open issue from Ed's comments. I don't think we resolved it. Ed, did you want to make a suggestion on that? 16:30:43 Ed: Yes, one of my todos is to go back and add something into ... realtime and batch, make those changes. We have that covered, it's just not in there yet. 16:31:09 q+ 16:31:13 Ian: If batch processing is not a thing that people are working hard on these days, if more people are focused on realtime, given limited resources, people may want to focus on realtime. 16:31:20 Ian: Is that a place where people want to invest. 16:31:25 ltoth: I don't think we know yet 16:31:33 ltoth: It's important that we don't lose track of it. 16:32:06 Ian: My proposal is to add a note near realtime funding, also recognize batch processing will continue to play a role in the ecosystem and can be discussed in the context of this topic. 16:32:16 Ian: I'm adding these now 16:32:28 Ian: After this call, we'll freeze the page for TPAC> 16:32:33 ** Note: We also recognize batch processing will continue to play a role in the ecosystem and can be discussed in the context of this topic. 16:33:08 Ed: I'm not sure the entire ecosystem agrees with realtime processing, some may want to stay w/ batch. Batch needs to remain in the discussions. 16:33:53 Ian: Detailed consideration of the topic, how do we decentralize lookup. 16:34:05 Ian: Someone may have to have a database, yep, no change to the wiki. 16:34:30 Ian: In the case where the database is not online, there will be a need to send data back to database owner that coupon has been used and is no longer valid. Offline use as a keyword. 16:34:39 Ian: How will offline use be managed? 16:34:48 Ian: Offline use is a fine mobile topic 16:35:26 Ian: Simon says: Beacon technology may be one way to tell customers about what's available. 16:35:52 Ian: We say via a QRCode or a barcode at the point of sale. e.g. via QRCode, barcode, NFC, bluetooth at point of sale. 16:36:20 ltoth: THat's getting into the gory details, 16:36:25 Ian: We should say beacon not bluetooth 16:37:04 Ian: I'm contemplating adding other technologies into that parenthetical. 16:37:13 q+ 16:38:05 ltoth: He's saying beacons or geofencing are one way to tell customers about an offer. A beacon is how an offer may be delivered. You still have to scan the coupon. 16:38:22 Ian: Without requiring software installation, via beacon technology - how will information reach the users device. 16:38:30 ltoth: It belongs under distribution 16:38:47 q- 16:38:50 ltoth: We purposely didn't want to call out technologies. 16:39:09 +1 to not naming technologies, but categories like proximity, geo-fencing 16:39:15 +1 16:39:32 q? 16:39:34 jack ed 16:39:38 ack ed 16:40:31 q+ 16:40:34 Ian: SImon says: A common app that is one that is not held by common retailer/marketer - we call common app as "the browser" that's our target in general. We don't really focus on software other than that... we want software to do things. 16:40:44 q+ to not focus entirely on browser. 16:40:46 q+ 16:41:03 ack j 16:41:27 q- 16:41:46 jack ed 16:41:46 Ian: What we're interested in is software that can do things because of standards. 16:41:51 jack ed 16:41:53 ack ed 16:42:29 Ed: Companies like Groupon and Retailmenot, where many offers from different retailers end up - don't know if that's what he meant? 16:42:40 Ian: I read it as - someone should be able to distribute something that works cross retailer. 16:42:56 Ian: I think that we should enable that - that's the kind of cross-retailer interoperability that we'd like. 16:42:57 Ed: That's fair. 16:43:33 Ian: Next one: Retailers may also have constraints on who they could sell goods to that could impact offers - this may override the coupon providers constraint. We have a couple of constraint based points. 16:43:54 Ian: We currently say that some merchants may want to constraint. He's saying retailers also want to constraint. I think we've covered that. 16:44:00 q+ 16:44:04 ack jh 16:44:21 Ed: Controls of distribution covers all of this 16:44:48 jheuer: We need to figure out who states rules that apply, because we could erode transparency as a result. 16:45:05 jheuer: The issuer needs to know that there are exceptions and they need to state that. 16:45:53 Ian: PCI requirements don't allow public connection to Internet at PoS. 16:46:13 Ian: This one, if I look for keyword "security" it doesn't show up in the wiki. 16:46:39 Ian: I wouldn't add a new bullet point - at the top, under discussion topics, we also anticipate covering familiar W3C topics. 16:46:54 q+ 16:46:57 q+ 16:47:03 q- 16:47:19 ltoth: We also need to consider retailers enrolement process. 16:47:21 q? 16:47:24 ltoth: That may be out of scope 16:47:25 q+ 16:47:39 Ed: I'm not sure what enrollement process means 16:47:45 ltoth: WHen a customer comes in a store... 16:48:06 ltoth: We talk about enrollement in terms of loyalty, this steps outside - it could include loyalty 16:48:23 Ed: I may have not heard Simons comment correctly. I heard the retailer would have to enroll. 16:48:33 ltoth: He may have. The retailer enrolling customers into their programs. 16:48:56 ltoth: I don't think we need to make changes on the things we're unclear of. 16:49:06 ltoth: We're trying to put a proposal forward. 16:49:26 q+ 16:49:29 q+ 16:49:29 ed: I do think the security issue, as raised, may have some validity. If there is a general commnent that you used, maybe that's appropriate. 16:49:32 jack ed 16:49:34 ack ed 16:49:39 ack manu 16:50:03 manu: We do want to have standard boilerplate re: horizontals. We may want to call out some specifics as well (e.g., PCI) 16:50:24 q+ with a proposal! :) 16:50:38 ack j 16:51:23 jheuer: Additions I proposed last week - copying stuff, making sure they're real - several security aspects. We shouldnt' freeze them now into the discussion, let's have a hint on security behing covered, but not cover them now. 16:51:28 ack me 16:52:27 Ian: Concrete proposal - add new section to wiki - other topics to track in CG - Security, Privacy, PCI issues, merchant internal processes which might benefit from increased interoperability, etc. 16:52:38 Ian: Catch phrases so that we don't forget, just for later discussion 16:52:39 +1 16:53:00 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/DigitalOffers2016#Other_Topics_To_Track_in_the_CG 16:53:14 Ian: We should add to that as we think of things. 16:53:33 Ian: WIth that - I didn't mention enrollement, not going to put that in. 16:53:51 Ian: Capturing coupon value - getting offers to user, think that's captured there. 16:54:17 ltoth: Under funding sources, do we need to add "amount"? 16:55:11 Ian: Merchants need to be able to distinguish... 16:55:17 ltoth: Funding sources for individual offers 16:55:52 Ian: Would there be a charge-back process - detailed topic, happy to mention chargeback in the other topics. 16:56:17 Manu: Is chargeback a thing for coupons? 16:56:42 Ian: What about fraud management? 16:57:06 Ian: Is realtime funding possible and the cost of processing high? 16:57:12 Ian: No change, we need to get to the discussion. 16:57:24 Ian: What proof will marketers require? 16:57:37 Ian: What proofs are required, we can include that as a question. 16:57:58 q+ 16:58:19 Ian: I'm proposing adding something to controls under redemption - verify that an offer is legitimate or it was processed as expected. 16:58:22 Ed: It's covered 16:58:47 Ian: SHould we call it out in bullets above? 16:58:47 jack ed 16:58:49 Ed: I see. 16:58:49 ack ed 16:59:01 jheuer: Does verification imply feedback to user? 16:59:05 Ian: We don't know yet 16:59:16 Ian: Focused on business question, not user experience or implementation details. 16:59:59 zakim, close item 2 16:59:59 agendum 2, Simon's comments, closed 17:00:00 Ian: I've updated the wiki, no more edits planned. 17:00:01 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:00:01 1. Joerg's presentation [from Ian] 17:00:01 zakim, take up item 3 17:00:02 agendum 3. "Any other outreach updates?" taken up [from Ian] 17:00:26 Ian: I did a couple of updates in Google Doc today summarizing responses - anyone have any updates? 17:00:32 ltoth: I didn't get any emails out. 17:00:46 Ian: Maybe send a variation - w/o deadline. 17:00:49 IJ: Please still try but without the deadline 17:00:49 same for me, sorry! 17:00:49 Ed: I sent all mine out 17:01:06 (to send stuff out to ) 17:01:25 Ian: Responses have been positive so far. 17:01:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:01:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/16-wpay-digitaloffers-minutes.html manu 17:01:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/16-wpay-digitaloffers-minutes.html Ian 17:11:14 Ian has left #wpay-digitaloffers 17:11:27 Ian has joined #wpay-digitaloffers 17:11:38 zakim, bye 17:11:38 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been ed_, Ian, ltoth, Manu, DavidE, jheuer 17:11:38 Zakim has left #wpay-digitaloffers 17:11:44 rrsagent, bye 17:11:44 I see no action items