W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > July 2016

Re: Comments on HTTP API before publishing FPWD

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:46:21 -0400
Message-ID: <5787A5BD.2020903@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-payments-wg@w3.org
On 07/14/2016 10:27 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> I have submitted a PR with some concrete changes that: - sync the
> diagram with the accompanying text: - change the flows to be more
> aligned with what the group has agreed upon for pull-based payment
> methods (like basic card) - add issue markers
> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-http-api/pull/2
> I tried to separate these into commits that could be cherry-picked
> if necessary.

+1, LGTM.

> Some general comments:
> *Flow diagram* This created a lot of confusion in the f2f. - We
> should drop the term token/tokenized. I'm not sure it adds any value

I'm fine w/ dropping the tokenized language and doing basic card for now.

> - Step 11 in the current flow doesn't seem feasible in a client
> server setup. This looks like server push.

Step 11 is the HTTP response from step 8, which is possible in a
client/server setup. How could we make this more clear? Is it necessary
to make it more clear before FPWD?

> *Terminology* If we are going to pull the terminology in we need to
> fix it up asap. If it's going to be used in public working drafts it
> needs a clean up.

I'm fine w/ making a pass on this, but don't think it's necessary before

> *Push Payments* We need to demonstrate both a push and a pull based
> payment. This is still very pull based.

Agree that we should do some work in the push-based payments case, but
seeing as how none of our other specs talk about push-based payments, I
don't think it's necessary to get this in there (other than possibly an
issue marker) before FPWD.

> If there is a significant amount of work to do on this document then
> I would not encourage us to push it to FPWD yet and to hold off until
> the group can give it due attention.

We agreed to do a CfC at the face-to-face based on an implementation,
demonstrated interest, and desire to move this specification forward. A
friendly reminder that FPWD does not mean everyone has to agree on the
content. Where there is disagreement, we can put in an issue marker and

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2016 14:46:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 14 July 2016 14:46:46 UTC