- From: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:32:46 +0200
- To: "Swendseid, Claudia" <claudia.swendseid@mpls.frb.org>, "public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org" <public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org>
Dear Claudia, thank you very much for your comments. See below some remarks: > *1.**Scope Statement:* I agree with almost all your points except: > b.Line 2 – Add the following to the list of payment methods in > parentheses—i.e., ACH, debit cards, prepaid cards, e-checks. Also, > delete the reference to “coupon” as this isn’t a payment method. > Consider also deleting “Loyalty card” as this may or may not be a > payment method, depending on whether it is tied directly to the payment > itself. In some cases a loyalty card is tied only to customer > information, rewards, or other items relevant to the customer/merchant > relationship and not the payment method itself. I believe we need to keep loyalty cards and coupons in the scope. what about separating payment methods in traditional payment methods, non-traditional currencies (aka cryptocurrencies or electronic tokens), and non-money-based payments (coupons, loyalty cards) ? about success criteria, this group is not in charge of implementing payment standards. The implementation of new standard for payments will be the success criteria of technical group(s) in charge of developing the considered standards (and it is a requirements in W3C process), but not the steering group. However, as you suggested, this group should include in its scope and activities the promotion of new web payments standards. concerning deliverables, I'm also ok with most of your points. I will clarify high-value authentication which means improved authentication using various technologies from multi-factor auth to secure-elements, smartcard-based auth. about > d.Under both topics #3, /Payment Transaction Messaging,/ and #4, > consider adding a new bullet that states, “Leverage and/or reference > existing, relevant technical standards. I suggest to mention it clearly both in the scope and at the very beginning of the deliverable section because it is a critical element to highlight imho. what do you think? About the external liaison, i beleive the precision you are proposing are better than the general description, so i will update accordingly Best Stephane -- Stephane Boyera stephane@w3.org W3C +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27 BP 93 F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 12:33:17 UTC