14:58:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpwg
14:58:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/05-wpwg-irc
14:58:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:58:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wpwg
14:58:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:58:11 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:58:12 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference
14:58:12 <trackbot> Date: 05 January 2017
14:58:56 <adamR> adamR has joined #wpwg
14:59:57 <pascal_bazin> pascal_bazin has joined #wpwg
15:00:33 <Adam_> Adam_ has joined #wpwg
15:00:45 <Ian> Ian has changed the topic to: WPWG Conf Call - 5 January https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170105
15:00:48 <Ian> agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170105
15:01:17 <Ian> present+
15:01:22 <Ian> present+ Olivier
15:01:25 <rouslan> rouslan has joined #wpwg
15:01:27 <Ian> present+ Pascal
15:01:30 <adamR> present+
15:01:34 <Ian> present+ Rouslan
15:01:44 <Ian> regrets+ Nick
15:01:49 <Ian> Chair: AdrianHB
15:03:23 <Ian> present+ AdrianHB
15:03:26 <Ian> present+ Alan
15:05:00 <stan> stan has joined #wpwg
15:06:19 <Ian> present+ Stan
15:06:21 <zkoch> zkoch has joined #wpwg
15:06:28 <Ian> present+ zkoch
15:06:55 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170105
15:07:05 <Ian> topic: Deployment
15:07:15 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Adoption2017
15:07:40 <Ian> Proposed time /date is 20 January at noon ET
15:08:32 <Ian> [review]
15:08:45 <Ian> call for review: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2017JanMar/0002.html
15:10:14 <Ian> topic: Manifest Specification
15:10:23 <Ian> https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/Payment-Manifest-Proposal.html
15:11:08 <Ian> IJ: Any experimentations that should be reflected in this spec?
15:11:45 <Ian> zkoch: As we've explored third-party apps we've expanded a bit to solve various use cases like certificate change
15:11:49 <oyiptong> oyiptong has joined #wpwg
15:11:49 <rouslan> q+
15:12:03 <Ian> ...but these would fall under the "Android" heading of a payment method manifest file
15:12:04 <Ian> q+
15:12:20 <Ian> ...I think the biggest open question is probably the addressing question
15:12:38 <Ian> ...how do you get the manifest file given the payment method identifier?
15:12:49 <Ian> This is issue 19
15:12:52 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers/issues/19
15:13:46 <Ian> rouslan: the manifest file spec shape comes from Google/Alipay discussions
15:14:04 <Ian> ..the Web section aligns with the payment app api spec
15:14:14 <Ian> ..in the payment app api spec we talk about manifest format (not files)
15:14:42 <Ian> so the manifest file format has web and extension points
15:15:06 <Ian> ...and the manifest format also allows some scoping of which payment apps may be used to implement a payment method
15:15:07 <Ian> q?
15:15:10 <Ian> ack me
15:16:15 <rouslan> q+
15:17:01 <pea13> pea13 has joined #wpwg
15:17:03 <canton_> canton_ has joined #wpwg
15:17:05 <zkoch> q+
15:17:30 <Ian> IJ: Need to address big issues like security here
15:17:33 <Ian> ack rou
15:17:45 <Ian> rouslan: Definitely issues about security and who can do what needs to be spelled out
15:17:51 <adamR> q+
15:18:32 <Ian> ...one thing that zkoch mentioned that is important is how to map between the payment method manifest file, the way to invoke the payment app, and the payment method and payment app identifier
15:18:35 <Ian> (Issue 19)
15:19:01 <Ian> rouslan: If you have a payment method manifest file, that file describes how to get the payment app
15:19:25 <Ian> ack zk
15:20:06 <Ian> zkoch: Ian is right - there is clearly a lot to be written...
15:22:05 <Ian> ack ad
15:22:26 <Ian> adamR: I do think that writing down the issues in the doc is a good idea
15:22:33 <Ian> ...I have a strong opinion about defaults
15:23:09 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers/issues/19
15:24:13 <adamR> q+
15:24:23 <Ian> ack a
15:24:36 <Ian> adamR: -1 to "more than one way to do this"
15:24:44 <zkoch> q+
15:24:47 <Ian> ..you end up with non-overlapping choices by implementers
15:24:49 <Ian> ack zk
15:25:09 <Ian> zkoch: I think realistically the two ideas with the most traction are HTTP link headers and known string (options 1 or 2)
15:25:28 <rouslan> q+
15:25:29 <Ian> ...I'm ok with either one. Let's pick one and go with it and see how it plays, then come back and change if we need to.
15:25:47 <Ian> ack rou
15:26:00 <Ian> rouslan: HTTP Link headers...is that what goes into Web page?
15:27:00 <adrianba> https://www.w3.org/wiki/LinkHeader
15:27:02 <AdrianHB> q+ to ask which format is mandatory
15:27:21 <Ian> rouslan: If server-level config, this means that we'd not be able to handle payment methods on github, for example
15:27:38 <Ian> ...what is level of support for HTTP Link headers?
15:27:57 <zkoch> This is just HTTP I think
15:27:58 <Ian> ack A
15:27:58 <Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask which format is mandatory
15:28:23 <Ian> adrianhb: If we have dev documentation and also machine readable.
15:28:35 <adamR> Not worth taking time on the queue, but Firefox most certainly implements Link: headers
15:28:41 <Ian> ...it feels to me that the human-readable info is OPTIONAL and the machine-readable thing is MANDATORY
15:28:59 <Ian> ...and so perhaps we should favor the payment method identifier pointing to the machine-readable information
15:29:01 <Ian> ...and the JSON points to documentation
15:29:11 <zkoch> q+
15:29:15 <Ian> ...that feels to me like the right priority
15:29:17 <rouslan> q+
15:29:17 <Ian> ack zk
15:30:19 <Ian> zkoch: I agree with the prioritization (machine-readable is most important). It seems to me ok to pursue both worlds.
15:30:26 <Ian> q+
15:30:29 <Ian> ack rous
15:30:44 <Ian> rouslan: One thing to keep in mind - android pay has a bunch of documentation
15:30:59 <Ian> ....serving JSON from that space is probably not feasible
15:31:12 <Ian> ...and asking merchants to switch URLs would be a burden
15:31:14 <Ian> ack me
15:33:00 <AdrianHB> To be clear, proposal is to have PMI point to JSON and use link header (or link within JSON) to point to human-readable.
15:33:02 <zkoch> -1 on 4 :)
15:33:09 <Ian> IJ: Option 4 favors the data and is basically "2" but inverted
15:34:21 <Ian> zkoch: I think it's easier for people to find human-readable documentation when they are hunting around
15:34:28 <Ian> ...so I would put that first.
15:34:42 <Ian> ...it's not really that hard to do both worlds (e.g., via HTTP Link Headers)
15:35:13 <Ian> zkoch: Known assets works
15:35:27 <Ian> q?
15:35:45 <adamR> q+
15:35:48 <Ian> ack ad
15:35:56 <Ian> q+ with a proposal
15:36:08 <Ian> q?
15:36:26 <Ian> [Review of link headers]
15:36:27 <adamR> BTW, http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5988.txt
15:37:27 <Ian> q+ to talk about proposal next steps
15:37:56 <Ian> adamR: .well-known is for constrained situations (that we are not in)
15:38:02 <Ian> ack me
15:38:02 <Zakim> Ian, you wanted to talk about proposal next steps
15:38:11 <Ian> PROPOSED: Resolve issue 19 with HTTP Link Headers
15:38:53 <AdrianHB> q+ to ask what PMI points to then?
15:39:05 <Ian> IJ: This approach suggests a link type registration
15:39:25 <Ian> zkoch: I'd like to test this approach and come back to the group
15:39:41 <Ian> ack adrianhb
15:39:41 <Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask what PMI points to then?
15:40:01 <Ian> adrianHB: What does the PMI point to?
15:40:02 <Ian> https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-method-identifiers/
15:40:43 <Ian> zkoch: My understanding is this is the desired behavior:
15:40:59 <Ian> 1) Given a PMI, user gets human readable documentation
15:41:22 <Ian> 2) Given a PMI, the user agent can GET on this URL and get a response header that points to the JSOn
15:41:38 <Ian> 3) The response header uses an IANA registered relationship
15:42:13 <adamR> q+
15:42:20 <Ian> adrianHB: I think we could support both options - PMI gives back JSON and from there the browser can find human-readable
15:42:53 <Ian> ..rouslan's point is interesting about hosting these files on other sites, like github
15:43:20 <Ian> q+
15:43:22 <zkoch> This makes me think #1 is the correct route :)
15:43:22 <Ian> ack adam
15:43:50 <Ian> adamR: Link headers are defined to have semantic equivalents to link elements in an HTML document. in all likelihood we already have that in browsers...
15:44:07 <Ian> ...we probably could specify this such that link headers in an HTMl document can be used when HTTP headers are not available
15:44:19 <Ian> ...but this is more costly because you have to GET a full document
15:44:27 <Ian> s/GET on this URL/HEAD on this URL/
15:44:36 <rouslan> q+
15:44:40 <Ian> ack me
15:45:46 <Ian> adrianHB: If we want to accommodate people who can't easily do server-side configs, then we should define what the default form is what they host at that URL
15:45:53 <adrianba> q+
15:46:02 <Ian> ...so I am hearing the default is "HTML" with a Link element...but that can be inefficient
15:46:06 <zkoch> But if we accept that as true, then why not do #1? This was my complaint from the beginning.
15:46:20 <Ian> ...the alternative is to favor the JSON and find documentation from there
15:46:53 <Ian> ack rous
15:47:16 <Ian> rouslan: the point from AdamR is that if we define two ways to access this, then there will be interop problems
15:47:25 <Ian> ...why don't we define an algorithm?
15:47:35 <adamR> q+
15:47:47 <adrianba> q- later
15:47:58 <Ian> ..that will increase browser dev cost, but it will meet adrianHB need (e.g., allow files on github more easily)
15:48:25 <Ian> ...so I'd like to propose the algorithm approach of HTTP Link header first, then if not there, look for link relationship second after GET of HTML
15:48:29 <Ian> AdamR: I'm ok with that
15:48:39 <Ian> ..I think a lot of machinery for that exists
15:48:43 <Ian> q?
15:48:48 <Ian> ack ad
15:48:53 <Ian> ack adrianba
15:48:57 <AdrianHB> +1 to rouslan (also doubt we'll actually have many PMI inventors with minimal technical capability)
15:49:08 <Ian> adrianba: I am fine with any of the choices except for option 4
15:49:27 <Ian> ...at the risk of prolonging the discussion, I don't think we should optimize for people creating payment method identifiers
15:49:40 <Ian> ...in the end we will have relatively few of those compared to the number of developers using those URLs to make payment requests
15:50:36 <Ian> Straw pool:
15:50:44 <AdrianHB> +1 to adrianba (but we should be explicit about that design decision and priority of constituents)
15:50:51 <Ian> Option 1) HTTP Link header
15:51:04 <Ian> Option 2) HTTP Link header, otherwise look in HTML for Link element
15:51:12 <adamR> Option 1
15:51:16 <adrianba> 1
15:51:17 <stan> 1
15:51:25 <pascal_bazin> 1
15:51:30 <zkoch> Umm… which is the one I’ve been saying?
15:51:31 <AdrianHB> 1 (but still prefer content neg) :)
15:51:31 <zkoch> :)
15:51:33 <oyiptong> 1
15:51:46 <zkoch> Great, 1?
15:51:51 <zkoch> _1
15:51:56 <rouslan> since, adrianba is 1, i am 1 too
15:52:13 <rouslan> s/adrianba/adrianhb/
15:52:33 <zkoch> sgtm
15:52:35 <rouslan> +1
15:52:51 <rouslan> q+
15:53:00 <adamR> ack adamR
15:53:02 <Ian> ACTION: zkoch to experiment with HTTP link header as a means of addressing issue 19
15:53:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Experiment with http link header as a means of addressing issue 19 [on Zach Koch - due 2017-01-12].
15:53:23 <Ian> alan: We will do the same
15:53:29 <Ian> ACTION: Alan to experiment with HTTP link header as a means of addressing issue 19
15:53:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Experiment with http link header as a means of addressing issue 19 [on Alan Marshall - due 2017-01-12].
15:54:00 <Ian> IJ: When should we bug you about your findings?
15:54:02 <zkoch> ::looks at Rouslan::
15:54:10 <zkoch> 2-3 weeks sgtm
15:54:19 <Ian> rouslan: +1 to 2-3 weeks
15:54:28 <rouslan> web-payments-manifest
15:54:32 <rouslan> payment
15:54:34 <rouslan> pay
15:54:41 <Ian> payment-method-manifest
15:54:52 <AdrianHB> application/json+payment-method-manifest
15:55:12 <rouslan> q+
15:55:19 <Ian> ack rous
15:55:39 <AdrianHB> sorry, that is a mime-type :)
15:55:45 <adamR> BTW, existing relations are listed here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml#link-relations-1
15:56:12 <adamR> “payment-method-manifest” would be, by far, the longest name in that table. :)
15:56:26 <Ian> rouslan: Another place to experiment is to determine how well http link headers are deployed
15:56:32 <AdrianHB> +1 payment-method-manifest
15:57:18 <Ian> ACTION: Ian to investigate HTTP Link header deployment status
15:57:18 <trackbot> 'Ian' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., ijacobs, ijmad).
15:57:23 <adamR> Ian: I think the number of registered relations speaks to how well deployed this is.
15:57:34 <AdrianHB> +1 adamr
15:58:16 <Ian> Ian: We will return in 3 weeks to this question.
15:58:35 <Ian> topic: Basic Card
15:58:44 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/blob/gh-pages/proposals/supported-networks-list.md
15:59:07 <AdrianHB> Web Linking (RFC 5988) is referenced by LOTS of other specs which suggests it is stable and widely used: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5988/referencedby/
16:00:26 <zkoch> +1, let’s do it
16:00:40 <adamR> SGTM
16:00:43 <Ian> PROPOSED - adopt this proposal => https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/blob/gh-pages/proposals/supported-networks-list.md
16:00:44 <zkoch> The strings are already being used in the wild, sooo *shrug*
16:00:45 <adrianba> +1
16:00:48 <AdrianHB> +1
16:01:00 <rouslan> yep
16:01:12 <rouslan> we also have "mir"
16:01:18 <AdrianHB> (but would like to hear from card acquirers...)
16:01:45 <Ian> [Added "mir"]
16:02:11 <zkoch> Have to go to next meeting. See ya!
16:02:18 <zkoch> ahhh
16:02:39 <Ian> Ian: Would like to get trademark input before we finally adopt
16:02:50 <Ian> RESOLVED: Adopt the network list proposal (pending trademark input)
16:03:11 <AdrianHB> p.s. Open source card data: https://github.com/binlist/
16:03:32 <Ian> Topic: FTF
16:03:34 <Ian> register!
16:03:37 <Ian> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/83744/wpwg-201703/
16:03:51 <Ian> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/83744/wpwg-201703/results
16:04:11 <Ian> Also the WPIG is likely to meet on 22 March
16:04:17 <Ian> (expect formal decision next week)
16:04:24 <Ian> Topic: Next meeting
16:04:35 <AdrianHB> 12 Jan
16:04:35 <Ian> 12 Jan
16:04:38 <Ian> rrsagent, make minutes
16:04:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/05-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
16:04:41 <Ian> rrsagent, set logs public
17:05:23 <stan> stan has joined #wpwg
17:57:41 <stan> stan has joined #wpwg
18:22:08 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wpwg
19:43:44 <Adam__> Adam__ has joined #wpwg