Comments on Charter

Hi.

I added comments for charter at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wsvqY_wvhqG77OXh1JaPUJiU9TX3H-KfVYBqzVP2J6I/edit?usp=sharing

followings are summary of my comments

Note: For more information about roles involved in this payment flow
(payer, payee, etc.), please see the Web Payments Interest Group's glossary
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-web-payments-use-cases-20150416/#terminology>.

==> is this correct link for Glossary? it linked to usecases.

Where practical the standards will be usable by native applications/apps.

==> this will mis-lead using native apps.
suggestion : "web applications including native applications/apps"

Easier integration of new payment schemes by payment service providers,
increasing merchant acceptance.

==> can we use "payee" instead of merchant?
I'm thinking merchant, vending machine

The interfaces between the payment schemes and the Web are usually at the
user agent and the Web application, therefore the scope of the initial
charter is focused on the interactions between these two components and the
external actors that will interface directly with them.

==> if we consider multiple user agents, the interfaces will be more
complex than single.
but we have to consider multiple user agents in the payment flow.

Registration, by the payer with their wallet
<http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/charters/payments-wg-charter.html#wallets>,
of any conforming payment instrument they wish to use on the Web (e.g. a
credit or debit card, electronic cash, cryptocurrency, etc).

==> Pre-Payment can be initiated by payee or payer
and Registered only by payer with their wallet.
I'm thinking registration can be processed at the same time of "Payment
Initiation Request" by the payee.
suggest to add "registration requested can be initiated by payee"

the accepted payment schemes, price, currency, recurrence, transaction type
(purchase, refund etc.)

==> hope to add "timeout, callback address"

Negotiation of Payment Instruments

==> do we exclude "Selection of Payment Scheme" which is higher level of
payment instrument?

Discovery, by the payer, of their available payment instruments that can be
used to make the payment. This is done by matching those registered by the
payer with those supported by the payee (as defined in the Payment
Initiation Request), while keeping information local to the payer

==> discovery is combination of registration.
will these flow be bound to user agent level?
how to make discovery between multiple user agents of payer?
just with single user agent, the view is clear.
but with multiple user agents, the view is not clear.

An example basic payment flow where messages are proxied via a user agent

==> I'm trying to draw the payment flow with sequence diagram style.
the diagram is quite complex.

suggest to replace diagram with thishttp://bit.ly/1DgWanG
<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F1DgWanG&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE5fm8Cndh6SrtWeaT8uF3JjzDFNw>
[image: Inline image 1]


The group will also address exceptions that may occur during these steps,
including payment authorization failure.

==> one of most important exception is timeout control.


   -

   It holds and allows access to payment instruments registered by the
   payer.
   -

   It provides logic to support certain payment schemes and enables the
   payer to use registered payment instruments to execute a payment in
   accordance with the rules and processes of that scheme.
   -

   It may hold digital assets, in the form of one or more account balances,
   that can be used to make payments.
   - It may enrich the payment flow by implementing business logic for
   loyalty, coupons, ticketing or other function that is complimentary to its
   payment capabilities.

==> we need to clarify wallet ownership.
we can image two cases.
* server side wallet which hold digital assets and wallet client will be
located at user agent side.
* client side wallet which hold digital assets at user agent side.

by the difference of wallet location, the payment flow will be different.

the entire description of charter should contain both cases.

suggestion: add "It may be located at user agent side or server side with
front interface of user agent."

The Working Group will develop machine-readable vocabularies that enable
the following

==> this is quite sensitive issue. how we manage lifecycle of vocabularies?
if new payment scheme appeared, how it can be added to the list? (after
closing WG activities)

suggestion: "The Working Group will develop machine-readable vocabularies
and mechanism to manage lifecycle of vocabularies ..."

------------
==> added Cash Payments with Escrow 1.0 (optional)

Cash Payments with Escrow 1.0 (optional)

Large proportion of payments on the Web are conducted using cash with
escrow (for payer protection).

The group should attept to define a standardized payment flow specifically
for cash with escrow.

A generic cash payment with escrow standard could:

   -

   Demonstrate initiation of escrow on payer choice, release of escrow with
   user consent.


escrow for payee proection can be standardized at another version.



-- 
Mountie Lee

PayGate
CTO, CISSP
Tel : +82 2 2140 2700
E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net