ISO20022. Was: Web Payments CG specs updated

On 2015-11-30 05:49, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The Web Payments CG specs have been updated based on input from the W3C
> TPAC face-to-face. The specs are in very rough form right now, focusing
> on what the messages, API calls, and flows would look like and ignoring
> details and specifics around wording. WARNING: There is a fair bit of
> hand waving going on wrt. details.
>
> The documents are a loose collection of ideas that have been explored in
> the Web Payments CG over the past several years. Once we identify which
> general direction the group would like to head in, we'll add more detail
> to each idea.
>
> Please review the specs in this order:
>
> http://wicg.github.io/web-payments-browser-api/
> http://web-payments.github.io/web-payments-http-api/
> http://web-payments.github.io/web-payments-messaging/

Thank you very much for providing ISO20022 samples!
I don't have any answers (not a WG member either) but a bunch of questions and comments.

- ISO20022 is (AFAIK) primarily a "vocabulary". In this spec it has transcended to a "scheme". I don't understand what this scheme actually covers.

- IDO20022 payment operations appear to be quite information-rich compared to the other examples which raises the question "what information is actually needed"?

- Using a specific format is only a hard requirement when end-to-end security is a part of the plot (since you cannot "convert" signatures) which is not the case here.  In fact, ISO20022 doesn't specify a security solution.

Summary: Bringing ISO20022 into the core of any system seems like a poor use of scarce engineering resources, unless the entire system is based on ISO20022.

Anders

> If something doesn't make sense, don't assume it's because you are
> missing something. There very well could be a big gap/issue or a part in
> the processing flow that we haven't connected/solved.
>
> Feel free to look through the specs and raise issues at this point.
> We'll use those issues to refine the text that's there. At this point,
> just look for architectural faults/flaws, not details or specifics
> around grammar/wording.
>
> -- manu
>

Received on Monday, 30 November 2015 09:35:00 UTC