W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > January 2022

Next Steps Payment Request API; 28 January deadline for concrete proposals

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:07:14 -0600
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1C7B1FB8-E049-4B33-A4D3-6508BA77A12E@w3.org>
To: Web Payments Working Group <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
Dear Web Payments Working Group,

The Call for Consensus [1] to publish Payment Request API and Payment Method Identifiers as Recommendations ended last week with three statements of support and an objection from Criteo. The Chairs consider the objection from Criteo to be a strict subset of the Formal Objection they raised during the Proposed Recommendation review. Three additional statements of support for the
proposal arrived after the Call for Consensus deadline.

Criteo shared its perspectives on the Formal Objection at the 13 January Working Group meeting [2]. During that call it seemed that there might still be an opportunity to address the Formal Objection. Although we did not hear support for adding text that refers to disintermediation, we did perceive an opportunity to address the Formal Objection by including an enumeration of acceptable reasons for stopping the show() algorithm in steps 6 and 12. Although may not identify an enumeration for which there is consensus, we would like to try (for a limited period of time).

In light of the responses to the Call for Consensus and last week's discussion, here is our plan:

* Until 28 January (11pm UTC) the Chairs invite concrete proposals for an enumeration of reasons for an implementation of the 
  show() algorithm to stop (reject a promise) at steps 6 and 12.

  We request that proposals take the form of pull requests [3] on the specification. If that is impractical, Working Group
  participants may also send proposals to this list.

  As a note, we heard that the enumeration "for security and privacy reasons" might satisfy the Formal Objection, but would likely 
  not be supported by implementers because it would not allow for other steps to be taken to protect the user (e.g., due to resource 
  consumption).

* If the Chairs believe one or more proposals could reflect group consensus and satisfy the Formal Objection, we will organize a Call
  for Consensus to adopt one of them. If adopted, then we will report to the Director that we have resolved the Formal Objection.

* If the Chairs do not see signs of likely consensus, we will conclude that further consensus is unlikely and we will request 
  advancement to Recommendation with no changes to the specification.

We will reiterate this plan during our 20 January teleconference [4].

For the co-Chairs,
Ian Jacobs

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2022Jan/0000.html
[2] https://www.w3.org/2022/01/13-wpwg-minutes
[3] https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/pulls/
[3] https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20220120

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel: +1 917 450 8783
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2022 22:07:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 18 January 2022 22:07:19 UTC