RE: Wallets

On July 8, 2015 Manu Sporny wrote:
>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.
>If it has to do w/ higher-level Web applications, it probably belongs at W3C.

I think this is pretty generally useful characterization. A couple of thoughts:
* There are existing rails in use today, and these are usually associated with payment instruments (schemes).
    Often implementers will "bridge" to existing rails where appropriate.  Other implementers will
    create new rails in the image of the Web.
* I think understanding how existing rails will work in light of new web implementations is crucial;
   Understanding the dividing line between IETF and W3C is less crucial, technically, but maybe important
   for other reasons.
* I would add "User Experience" and "Developer Experience" to the W3C territory.

Best regards,
David


-----Original Message-----
From: Manu Sporny [mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 12:37 AM
To: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
Subject: 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/



________________________________
This electronic message, including attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or company named above or to which it is addressed. The information contained in this message shall be considered confidential and proprietary, and may include confidential work product. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting this email immediately.

Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 14:56:09 UTC