Re: Wallets

This is what I was going for with the idea that a wallet can be an
aggregator of other wallets.

We don't want to restrict this to browsers (the charter does talk about
other delivery mechanisms) but once we have standardised the messages and
flow we will want to standardise the delivery mechanisms that make sense
(the browser and a WebIDL being the most common and useful).

On 9 July 2015 at 16:20, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> 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
>