On Settlements

https://slack-files.com/files-pri-safe/T03G789F8-F06MKPGPR/afme_posttradeexplained_jan2015_w-2.pdf?c=1435065473-255fea898391b823f87ecadff74b76b5c043bd62

--

Heritage & Legacy Advisory | Multi-Generational Wealth Preservation

Arie Y. LEVY-COHEN
FINANCIAL ADVISOR | INTERNATIONAL CLIENT ADVISOR
ECONOMICS | FINANCE | BLOCKCHAIN TECH
PRIVATE WEALTH MANAGEMENT
P: 917.692.6999

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I'll take a stab at updating this. Some comments inline to clarify.
>
> On 19 June 2015 at 08:03, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>
>> Here are two comments on the draft charter at:
>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Roadmap/PaymentArchitectureWG
>> in particular, on the revision:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/index.php?title=Roadmap/PaymentArchitectureWG&oldid=1995
>>
>> (1) In the Scope section, it currently says:
>>       #  Discovery of available payment instruments that can be used
>>       #  by matching those registered by the payer with those
>>       #  supported by the payee (as defined in the Payment Request).
>>
>>     I think there was agreement in the discussions at the
>>     face-to-face that the selection of payment instrument is done by
>>     the payer, since we don't (for privacy reasons) want to expose
>>     all available payment instruments to the Web site.  This is even
>>     explicitly stated in the following bullet.  Despite that, I
>>     think the term "Discovery" is still a little bit jarring (since
>>     it suggests a discovery API).
>>
>>
> +1 that discovery is possibly the wrong word. You'll recall that this did
> cause some confusion during the use case discussion.
>
> My understanding from the discussion at the face to face was that we
> wanted the recommendation to support openness in support of payment schemes
> and instruments (i.e. The browser shouldn't prevent the user from
> registering any scheme or instrument) but that we didn't want to prescribe
> the algorithm that was used to match registered schemes and instruments
> against those supported by the payee.
>
> At this point I imagine the browser API spec defining that the browser
> MUST allow the user to define which "wallet" they want to use and for this
> "discovery" algorithm to be provided by the wallet. Browser's may ship with
> a default wallet from the day that they support the payment API but if the
> user replaces this with another then the payment request (list of supported
> payment schemes and instruments) must be passed, unaltered, from the
> browser to the "wallet" whenever the payment API is invoked.
>
>
>>     While I don't have a better term to offer, I think at least it
>>     could be clarified more locally by adding a clarifying
>>     statement, such as "so that an instrument can be selected by the
>>     payer" at the end or something like "local to the payer" or
>>     "while keeping information local to the payer".
>>
>
> I am starting to think we will need to use the term "wallet" and also
> define what this means.
>
>
>>
>> (2) Some parts of the "Web Payment Vocabularies 1.0"
>>     deliverable's description seem too specific.  In particular, I'd
>>     like to remove the entire (fourth) bullet point:
>>
>>       #  *  For each vocabulary, the Working Group will create at
>>       #     least a JSON-LD serialization and may create additional
>>       #     serializations (e.g., XML).
>>
>>     I'd prefer that the group not be constrained to those particular
>>     technical solutions.
>>
>
> +1 to a more open charter and leaving the specifics to the WG
>
>
>>     I also wonder whether some of the first three notes in that
>>     section might also be too specific; it's hard for me to tell as
>>     they're far from my areas of expertise.
>>
>> -David
>>   (at flight level 36,000 feet, above Nevada)
>>
>> --
>> 𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
>> 𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
>>              Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
>>              What I was walling in or walling out,
>>              And to whom I was like to give offense.
>>                - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
>>
>
>