RE: CfC to publish documents as FPWD of the Web Payments WG

Hello all,

Understanding that we need to make progress in small steps, we’re giving the FPWDs the following assessments:

+1 (a squeaking one) to Proposal 1: Publish "Payment Request API"
With the understanding, that the approach taken does not provide the modularity we expect to be necessary for a complex environment as the one we will be facing once we’re looking into further aspects. While the inclusion of delivery (and other) addresses are likely to pose high complexities in the future, aspects as user identity (e.g. customer/loyalty cards granting discounts, more payment options), legal identity proofs (e.g. legal age), coupons, vouchers and their complex relationships are not even in scope yet. We deem these highly relevant for adoption of the proposed functionality of web payments.
We advise to take into account a discretization of such elements as – credentials, claims, tokens, or whatever a suitable name is – particularly referring to the role of an identity provider for many of the tasks so hard to solve in the current design.
The role of the Mediator seems not heeded in this spec, although the architecture document names it.
The API specification strives to define the exchange of messages and callbacks between the merchant web site, the user agent (browser), and one or many payment apps. Even experienced experts in our company weren’t sure about the sequence of these interactions and recommend sequence diagrams being added in future versions of the document.

+1 to Proposal 2: Publish "Payment Request API Architecture"
Hoping for the requirement of ‘browser-independence’ eventually taken into account for further releases, invigorating the Mediator role (which is missing in here too).

+1 to Proposal 3: Publish "Payment Method Identifiers"

+1 to Proposal 4: Publish "Basic Card Payment" as a FPWD

All the best,

                Jörg, Axel, Peter


DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG
T-Labs (Research & Innovation)
Dipl.-Inform. Jörg Heuer
Research&Innovation Director Payment&Transactions, Innovation Policy
Winterfeldtstr. 21, 10781 Berlin
+49 (30) 8353-58422 (Tel)
+49 (170) 576 26 12 (Mob)
+49 (3915) 80243910 (Fax)
E-Mail: joerg.heuer@telekom.de
www.telekom.com<http://www.telekom.com/>

Life is for sharing.

DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG
Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Chairman)
Board of Management: Timotheus Höttges (Chairman),
Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Thomas Dannenfeldt,
Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794
Registered office: Bonn

Big changes start small – conserve resources by not printing every e-mail.



From: Adrian Hope-Bailie [mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 5. April 2016 21:29
To: Payments WG
Subject: CfC to publish documents as FPWD of the Web Payments WG


This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish one or more documents as First Public Working Drafts (FPWD) of the Web Payments Working Group.

 *   Proposal 1: Publish "Payment Request API" as a FPWD

    *   https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b37970994f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/paymentrequest.html


 *   Proposal 2: Publish "Payment Request API Architecture" as a FPWD

    *   https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b37970994f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/architecture.html


 *   Proposal 3: Publish "Payment Method Identifiers" as a FPWD

    *   https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b37970994f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/method-identifiers.html


 *   Proposal 4: Publish "Basic Card Payment" as a FPWD

    *   https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b37970994f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/basic-card-payment.html


For each proposal:

 *   We invite responses on this thread to each of the proposals.
 *   Silence will be taken to mean there is no Formal Objection [1], but positive responses are encouraged. Publication as a FPWD does NOT indicate that a document is complete or represent Working Group consensus.
 *   If there are no Formal Objections by 12 April 2016 (1pm EDT), the proposal will carry and the Chairs will request that the Director approve publication as FPWD(s).

The W3C Director takes Formal Objections seriously, and therefore they typically require significant time and effort to address. Therefore, please limit any Formal Objections to issues related to the scope of these documents rather than technical content where the Working Group has not yet made a decision. Please include substantive arguments or rationale for consideration by the Director.

If there are Formal Objections, the Chairs plan to contact the individual(s) who made the Formal Objection to see whether there are changes that would address the concern and increase consensus to publish. Depending on the number and nature of the Formal Objections, the Chairs will either make a decision either to pursue FPWD and report the Formal Objections to the Director (as required by W3C Process), or to postpone publication until there is greater consensus to publish.

If there is a decision not to publish a document, we will adjust our communications to let people know about the Editor's Drafts and the decision to delay their publication as FPWDs.

NOTES:

 *   Publication of a FPWD is a signal to the broader community that we are seeking review of the specification(s) in their early stages. To frame that discussion, we plan to publish a blog post with the publication:

    *   https://www.w3.org/2016/03/15-wpwg-blog.txt


 *   Publication of a FPWD triggers an event under the W3C Patent Policy.
 *   The Working Group discussed this Call for Consensus at its 17 March 2016 teleconference

    *   https://www.w3.org/2016/03/17-wpwg-minutes


For the Chairs, Adrian Hope-Bailie

[1] https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Consensus