Re: [w3c/webpayments] New Architecture Proposal (#125)

@adrianhopebailie 

thanks for writing this up, and sorry its taken me so long to get around to reviewing it. I am overall happy with the proposal and support its inclusion into the WG. Below are my comments;

1. The definition of a payment request as a request from the payee to be paid removes the ability for unsolicited payments, e.g. donations. We shouldn’t remove the possibility in the architecture for a payee to offer up payment for a particular service, e.g. a ‘bid’ or ‘donation’. So for example the stipulation of what to pay might not be appropriate in all cases.

2. I think another diagram showing the roles and how they interact (not just sequence) would be useful, this could then cover interactions as a higher level and so be wider that the Payment Request Flow diagram such things such as registration.

3. The architecture doesn’t talk about invoice/receipt processing, what role(s) is the architecture are responsible for this?

4. Similarly, payment “assistance” such as shipping address information capture is not discussed.

5. I think user-agent (in the wider than browser sense) is not covered, we perhaps need something that covers what sets up the communication between a payee and a mediator. 

6. I think the diagrams of the document map discussed in in issue #138 would be useful to include too.




---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/pull/125#issuecomment-216887706