See also: IRC log
<adamlake> Adam Lake + present
<scribe> Scribe: Ian
Changes from Kylie:
https://www.w3.org/community/digitaloffers/wiki/index.php?title=Discussion_Topics&diff=89&oldid=86
IJ: One thought I have on redemption control; I wonder whether we should be thinking about a capability where the merchant sends info back through the browser that is given to the payment app, to enable the payment to update coupon state.
<adamlake> I think rejection of a coupon getting sent back to the user's payment app is a good idea.
adamlake: +1 to a common theme of merchant-provided information that can help the payment app notify the user and keep a healthy view of offers
ltoth: Merchant doesn't get reimbursed, right?
<dezell> q
kylie_davies: correct
IJ: Not sure what this use case
is adding. If this is just a business decision, may be out of
scope
... also, what information in the protocol is needed for
this?
... I don't think validation in scope. Merchants can do lots of
things; I think we should focus on how people get data not what
they do with it
ltoth: Maybe this is part of
settlement - if merchant overrides then merchant is on the
hook
... could talk about this there and label it as out of
scope
... I think validation is important and should be in scope
IJ: Very hard when we do strong identity. (e.g., real human being v. device? one per family?)
adamlake: Agree with the concern
IJ: Any work going on in that space?
adamlake: I think having a coupon being able to be reduced once by anyone and once by a particular person are very different (the former is easier)
dezell: Participation has gone
down a bit; what is status of our outreach to people?
... we also need to figure out our FTF meeting agenda
ltoth: Let's discuss offline
{We continue to walk through the use cases}
IJ: I continue to think that settlement is far away from what we should do.
27 February