Re: 答复: need reason description for exclusion of UseCase v1

"The standard should be focused on the interactions and the process flow –
with the ability for specifics like this to adjust how the standard is
implemented" +1

The high level flow we have arrived at supports a very wide set of use
cases but (for the sake of an achievable scope) puts processes such as
authentication, authorisation, meta-data exchange, invoicing, receipts,
loyalty, coupons etc outside the scope of *what will be standardised*.

The consensus from the group was that if the high level flow and a set of
extensible messages that will be part of this flow are standardised then it
will allow payer and payee to easily negotiate the payment terms (amount,
currency, recurrence, payment scheme, payment instrument etc) and leave
these security, regulatory and jurisdictional issues to the scheme to deal
with.

A key here is the use of an extensible message format so that it would be
easy for other standards such as UBL or ISO20022 to hook into this.
Example: A payment request could contain an embedded invoice or a link to
an invoice that is conformant to some external invoice format if that is
useful to the schemes that are being used.

I anticipate that the standards will prescribe a minimal set of data that
must be in a payment request, payment response and confirmation/proof and
also define how these messages may be extended BUT bare in mind that we are
now presupposing the work of the WG. All of this is simply in aid of
ensuring we charter this group appropriately.

ALSO, if there is sufficient interest or will to standardise things like
security within payment schemes, invoice or receipt formats or other items
currently considered out of scope, work to achieve this will likely
continue in parallel but they will not be part of the charter of the WG for
v1.

I expect that as soon as the Credentials WG is chartered there will be
close collaboration between them and the Payments Architecture WG to see
how credentials may be incorporated into the next version of the standard.

On 24 June 2015 at 14:45, David Jackson <david.dj.jackson@oracle.com> wrote:

> In summary – the standard would not “hard code” a selection process. The
> use case below specific to China is just that – specific to a regulatory
> and country preference framework. The standard should be focused on the
> interactions and the process flow – with the ability for specifics like
> this to adjust how the standard is implemented. Quite common for standards
> to be adjusted. This topic also arises in the unique flow and requirements
> of the Boleto in Brazil. Or G3 payments in Singapore, or … a myriad of
> other direct implementations based on standards. So maybe we should assume
> that specific geo-based, regulatory, or other needs will adjust the
> implementation – but not really adjust the standard. Does this help?
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Oracle] <http://www.oracle.com/>
> David Jackson | Senior Director Financial Services
> Mobile: +1.614.560.1237 <+16145601237> | VOIP: +1.614.465.6654
> <+16144656654>
> Oracle Industry Solutions Group
> New York City | Columbus
>
> [image: Green Oracle] <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>
>
> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect
> the environment
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Joseph Potvin [mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:27 AM
> *To:* Web Payments IG
> *Cc:* 茱滴
> *Subject:* Re: 答复: need reason description for exclusion of UseCase v1
>
>
>
> Consider these two scenarios:
>
> 1. Digital Bazaar buys a device from Alibaba's, via Alibaba's retail sales
> website.
>
> 2. Digital Bazaar sells system design services to Alibaba, via Alibaba's
> corporate procurement website.
>
> In both cases, will it not be the company with greater market power which
> first determines which payment instruments are presented for selection?
>
> While B2P is going to almost always involve the B (payee) selecting the
> set of available instruments, this is not a reliable assumption in B2B,
> G2B, B2G or G2G scenaros.
>
> Nor is it clear why it would be necessary or advantageous to "hard code"
> into a generic specification such an assumption about which party, the
> payee or payer, would initiate the selection of acceptable payment
> instruments.
>
>
> 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 Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:25 AM, 段超(泰麒) <zephyr.dc@alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The ubiquitous web payment scenario in China is:
>
> 1.       payee(supplying products or services, and collecting money at
> last) which we called merchant gets the payer’s payment request(maybe
> includes products’ or services’ name, id, price, count, etc.), and then
> transmit the request to escrow. In this process, payee only pass the
> information of the products or services which payer wants to buy to escrow.
>
> 2.       Then payee’s web or app will jump to escrow’s page or app.
> Escrow gets these information , and show payer which schemes and
> instruments are available.
>
> 3.       Payer chooses scheme and instrument which escrow offered, and
> then pay the money to escrow.
>
> 4.       Payee and escrow will consult with a settlement time at
> first(maybe every day’s 24:00). At that time, escrow will transfer the
> money to payee which payer has paid.
>
> During the process, payee don’t know any privacy information of the payer.
> What payee has to care about is only stuffs about products or services
> which they supplied.
>
> Moreover, escrow was the one dealt with payer’s privacy information and
> transfer money between payee and payer. So we have to make escrow
> compliance. Because of this, The People’s Bank of China has worked out
> several standards to normalize numerous escrows.
>
>
>
> About the issue of “wallets”, we usually call it virtual account. Because
> there are some app products named with “… wallet”, to avoid of  confusion
> we don’t use “wallet” as a terminology. However, we use “e-wallet”  as a
> payment scheme which is using in near field payment with IC card.
>
>
>
> Above is the current situation in China, I hope these will be a little
> help  to you.  : )
>
>
>
>
>
> 段超* (**泰麒**) *
>
> *Zephyr Tuan*
>
> *集**团安全部*_标准化与安全新技术
>
> *Corporation security*_standardization and new security research
>
>
>
> *发件人**:* Mountie Lee [mailto:mountie@paygate.net]
> *发送时间**:* 2015年6月24日 7:50
> *收件人**:* Adrian Hope-Bailie
> *抄送**:* Manu Sporny; public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
> *主**题**:* Re: need reason description for exclusion of UseCase v1
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>