Re: Wallets

On 07/07/2015 09:14 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> RE: "I think that we are standardizing a mechanism for a payer and 
> payee to transact over the Web so that payment service providers can
>  build great experiences that simply plug into the Web ecosystem."
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1. Is it crystal clear or is it vague, at this point, what in this 
> vision is to be handled by the Web (in the scope of W3C), versus what
> is to be handled a layer down by the Internet (in the scope of the
> IETF)?

It depends on which part of the stack you're talking about, so we
probably can't answer your question unless you are more specific.

For example, if you are talking about cryptographic algorithms, that's
IETF territory.

If you're talking about WebIDL interfaces into user agents (browsers)
that's W3C territory.

If you're talking about RDF vocabularies - that's W3C, but the core
content for those vocabularies is less clear and probably a mix
of European Commission, SWIFT, IBS, UNCITRAL, etc.

In general, if it has to do w/ lower- level Internet protocols and/or
cryptography, it probably belongs at the IETF.

If it has to do w/ higher-level Web applications, it probably belongs at
W3C.

> 2. Would it be correct to say that what is addressed via the IETF can
> be thoughtfully tailored to serve both Web and telecom platforms,
> whereas what is addressed via W3C cannot be assumed to carry through
> consistently to the telecom platforms?

Define "telecom platform". You could say that the Web is a gigantic
telecom platform. More traditional telecoms also rely heavily on the Web
to deliver services to their customers. WebRTC straddles both worlds.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice
https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/

Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 04:37:27 UTC