Re: Wallets

On 07/09/2015 08:55 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> No objections to the second change.
>
> The placement of the wallet text is intentional so that the term is
> defined before describing the flow. I'd leave it where it is.

If we view wallets as containers with which you can register various 
services/instruments/etc., then it's important that we don't turn them 
into silos.

We want to avoid requiring people to re-register all of the various 
services/payment instruments/various identity credentials every time 
they get a new wallet. The extreme inconvenience of that will cause lock 
in. In keeping with the analogy, when I get a new wallet, it only takes 
me a matter of seconds to pull out my cards/cash/whatever from my old 
wallet and put them into my new one.

One simple way to avoid wallet silos is to ensure it's possible to 
register other wallets or "wallet services" with a wallet. This can 
happen pretty much in the same way you'd register any other service with 
a wallet. That way, people can have their wallets live on the Web and 
get easy access to them from a variety of different user agents.

My understanding is that this is more or less what was meant by 
"discovery" in these discussions -- and that the idea of an "aggregator 
service", as mentioned in this second change, aims to provide the same 
feature.

The other important point with this change is that we want to avoid 
restricting the use of this new system to browsers. People should, for 
example, be able to use payment services through Web services and native 
applications, as well as browsers. These services/applications may not 
use the WebIDL API but we want them to interoperate in the ecosystem in 
a standard way. To my mind, that means, for example, those 
services/applications can "discover" a number of things (such as the 
endpoints to send payment requests to) via machine readable data.

>
> On 9 July 2015 at 06:52, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 07/08/2015 10:47 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
>      > I think wallets are central to the work of this WG. I hear you that
>      > we need to ensure we don't take design decisions that neglect the
>      > other stuff that is important to the wider IG but let's just say
>      > that in the charter and not pretend that this WG is less focused than
>      > it really is.
>
>     I'm failing miserably at conveying the nuance of my points. Let's try a
>     proposal in diff-marked format:
>
>     1. Move Wallets down in the scope section:
>
>     http://manu.sporny.org/tmp/wpig/payments-wg-charter-manu-1.diff.html
>
>     2. Change the wording a bit to give the WG more design flexibility.
>
>     http://manu.sporny.org/tmp/wpig/payments-wg-charter-manu-2.diff.html
>
>     Would anyone object to just those two changes?
>
>     -- 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/
>
>
>


-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
http://digitalbazaar.com

Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 14:21:12 UTC