W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > May 2015

Re: [payment agent] Payment architecture feature priorities

From: Nick Shearer <nshearer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 20:44:54 -0700
Cc: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <9046F60C-7132-4464-B350-1ACEEDF4B56E@apple.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> On May 21, 2015, at 8:06 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On 05/21/2015 11:31 AM, Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de wrote:
>> The problem described below is analog to the use of the NFC device -
>> or more exactly that of a specific 'aID' via NFC. There can only be
>> one handler for a specific aID on a given device. The choice is 
>> usually made available to the user by a 'wallet' application which 
>> has the right to 'talk' to the device. With HCE Google demonstrated 
>> that the stringent connection between NFC and SE is 'loosened' by the
>> operating system. Still, combinations of NFC and SE are not 
>> compromised in their integrity, HCE just offered more choice.
> 
> +1
> 
>> Assuming there's one 'wallet app' for all isn't a bad starting point
>> to give users best control and transparency.
> 
> I think that's a very dangerous starting position for anyone that is not
> in control of the OS platform (which is most of us).
> 
> History has demonstrated that the market doesn't always favor customer
> choice and transparency.
> 
>> That said, I believe that we don't have to solve this problem first.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> We will be able to standardize and recommend along one concept for 
>> communicating with one app on the device. If the operating system 
>> gets in between and 'forks' communication with several apps our 
>> protocols shouldn't falter, but support it. Nothing wrong in that - 
>> or is it?
> 
> I agree wrt. 'forking communication'. That's what W3C should be striving
> for from day one, and until that happens, I'm wary of putting the
> minority of organizations this group in a very favorable competitive
> position vs. the other members in the group.
> 
> Here's a counter-proposal:
> 
> For version 1.0, cloud-only wallets. This enables everyone to compete on
> a level playing field. Any one of us should be able to launch a cloud
> wallet.

For clarity, would you mind providing a definition of a “cloud-only wallet” in this context?

> 
> Once we figure out how to create an OS-level message bus that enables a
> level playing field w/ native-app/SE wallets, we can enable that as soon
> as it is available.
> 
> This does two things:
> 
> 1. Starts all of us on a level playing field (cloud-only wallets).
> 2. Progressively enhances the platform when we're sure we've created an
>   ecosystem that's going to support fair competition.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/
> 
Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 04:30:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:36 UTC