- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:06:03 -0400
- To: "public-webpayments-ig@w3.org" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKcXiSpo6RMTfqXAemBgwkvYL5o8+WMLHEjn_56ZsFswH1cogQ@mail.gmail.com>
RE: "payee provides the list of schemes and instruments to payer" It cannot be assumed that the payee leads the selection of instruments. If there is an initial selection, the context of the business will determine who leads. The payer could be an individual customer, while the payee merchant sets the terms. But in another scenario the payer could be a large client who sets the terms. In any case, this is in the e-commerce domain, not payments per se. Joseph Potvin On behalf of DataKinetics http://www.dkl.com Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@opman.ca Mobile: 819-593-5983 On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net> wrote: > to realize discovery as defined at usecase, > > payee collect available payment schemes and instruments of payer. (has > privacy issue) > payee provide the list of schemes and instruments to payer. > payer will DISCOVER the schemes and instruments by comparing to existing > wallet(depository, account or ...). > payer will select payment instrument for payee. > > is it correct approach? > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote: > >> FWIW, in the architecture being worked on at DataKinetics, "discovery and >> choice of payment instrument" is something established between payee and >> payer, so that this choice occurs in a free market e-commerce context. >> >> When payees and paymers have full control of their depositories (aka >> wallets or accounts, but let's avoid those terms) then they can enable >> their depositories to operate with whatever available payment instrument(s) >> they have agreed upon as the parties to the contract, and within the laws >> of their respective jurisdictions. >> >> In scenarios where an intermediary (device supplier; financial service; >> etc.) has full or partial control of either the payee's or payer's >> depository, the actual parties to the contract may not have access to their >> preferred choice of payment instrument even if their choice is legally >> permitted within their jurisdiction(s). The free market may therefore, to >> that extent, be *de facto* constrained by the intermediary. >> >> It seems therefore to be a fundamental policy choice to establish the >> extent to which "payees/payers optimizing for their interests within the >> full extent of the law" or "intermediaries optimizing for their interests >> within the full extent of the law" control the choice of payment >> instrument. >> >> It seems to me that this political-economy issue has much to do with >> Mountie's question, which was put forward as as technical issue. >> >> Joseph Potvin >> On behalf of DataKinetics http://www.dkl.com >> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations >> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman >> jpotvin@opman.ca >> Mobile: 819-593-5983 >> Mobile: 819-593-5983 >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> the first image for "Discovery" was >>> wallet (or payment agent) will discover the available schemes and >>> instruments. >>> but in the definition of Discovery of User Cases ( >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-web-payments-use-cases-20150416/#selection-of-payment-instruments >>> ) >>> describing discovery across the multiple digital wallets (on mobile >>> phone, in the cloud and on smart watch). >>> >>> with this understanding, >>> the wallet will discover available schemes and instruments across the >>> multiple digital wallets. >>> >>> but it is not possible with current web technologies. >>> >>> that is the reason I asked "who discover". >>> >>> regards >>> mountie. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie < >>> adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Mountie, >>>> >>>> This is the same "confusion" Dave highlighted regarding the word >>>> discover. >>>> There are 4 steps that must be completed before we have a final >>>> selection of payment scheme and instrument to begin processing a payment. >>>> >>>> 1. Registration: The user (over time) will register one or more payment >>>> schemes and instruments that they have and wish to use to make payments. >>>> They will configure how these must be used and set default parameters for >>>> their use. My understanding is that the current proposal is for this >>>> process to be IN SCOPE but not necessarily REQUIRED by the browsers >>>> themselves. i.e. The most likely scenario is that the browser allows the >>>> configuration of a "wallet" and the wallet itself is responsible for >>>> managing the various schemes and instruments. >>>> >>>> 2. Request for Payment: The web application (of the payee/merchant) >>>> makes a request to a browser API to perform a payment. In this request the >>>> payee provides a list of payment schemes and instruments that they will >>>> accept for payment (and possibly even different payment terms for each such >>>> as a different amount and currency). >>>> >>>> 3. Discovery: This step is the one causing the confusion because I >>>> think it is not clear who does the discovery. My understanding from the F2F >>>> is that this will be done by the "wallet". The browser will pass the >>>> payment request to the "wallet" and the wallet will use an algorithm to >>>> match the supported schemes and instruments from the payee with the >>>> registered schemes and instruments from the payer. >>>> >>>> 4. Selection: After discovery there should be a list of at least one >>>> payment scheme and instrument that is both supported by the payee and >>>> registered by the payer. If there are more than 1 then the user must be >>>> prompted to select the one they wish to use or the user may have configured >>>> the wallet to auto-select the one that will cost the least and then order >>>> by preference. >>>> >>>> Following these 4 steps we can now prompt the user to confirm the >>>> transaction and then proceed. >>>> >>>> Adrian >>>> >>>> On 23 June 2015 at 08:18, Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi. >>>>> I have a question for usecase v1 >>>>> >>>>> Discovery at Selection of Payment Instruments ( >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-web-payments-use-cases-20150416/#selection-of-payment-instruments >>>>> ) >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure who discover >>>>> maybe user will select payment instrument across the multiple wallets. >>>>> but who discover the wallets? >>>>> by mercahnt(payee)? >>>>> >>>>> regards >>>>> mountie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Manu Sporny < >>>>> msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 06/21/2015 12:08 PM, Mountie Lee wrote: >>>>>> > I found it at >>>>>> > https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Architecture_Priorities >>>>>> >>>>>> That link above was mostly an attempt at organizing the existing use >>>>>> cases into versions. I wouldn't suggest that anyone take it as >>>>>> anything >>>>>> more than an educated guess on how each use case we have today could >>>>>> be >>>>>> organized into versions. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the final list of use cases for version 1: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_June2015/UseCasesForVersion1 >>>>>> >>>>>> The only use case that was dropped from version 1 was the Credentials >>>>>> use case, primarily because there wasn't a belief that it was critical >>>>>> path for version 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> That said, the breakout session on use cases found that while >>>>>> Credentials wasn't critical path for version 1, that a Credentials WG >>>>>> should be created in parallel primarily due to demand for a better >>>>>> way >>>>>> of doing KYC/AML across the financial industry. I think the feedback >>>>>> from the roundtable underscored this desire. >>>>>> >>>>>> The rest of the feedback will be integrated into the use case >>>>>> descriptions this week. For each use case, the roadmap will clarify if >>>>>> only a subset of a use case for version 1 is expected to be >>>>>> implemented >>>>>> (electronic receipts, for example, is only supposed to have very >>>>>> minimal >>>>>> support in version 1). >>>>>> >>>>>> Mountie, are you asking that we document /every/ use case that wasn't >>>>>> selected for version 1, or just the use cases that were considered and >>>>>> then removed for version 1? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- 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/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mountie Lee >>>>> >>>>> PayGate >>>>> CTO, CISSP >>>>> Tel : +82 2 2140 2700 >>>>> E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mountie Lee >>> >>> PayGate >>> CTO, CISSP >>> Tel : +82 2 2140 2700 >>> E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Mountie Lee > > PayGate > CTO, CISSP > Tel : +82 2 2140 2700 > E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 03:07:38 UTC