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

Proposed FAQ Entry [Was: Relation of proposed Web Payments WG to Secure Electronic Transaction (SET)?]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:35:50 -0500
Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Dan Schutzer <cyberdan250@gmail.com>, David Ezell <David_E3@verifone.com>, Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <616AA884-A821-4558-B22F-CADB860D5CD0@w3.org>
To: David Jackson <david.dj.jackson@oracle.com>
Hi all,

Thank you for the responses to my question. Here's a draft FAQ
answer. You'll note that I only mention what I read as _functional_
differences between the SET approach and the scope of the new
WG. Other observations and people's experiences with SET (e.g., "more
complex" or "operated in a restricted processing environment" or
"there was no mobile") seem not directly relevant to the FAQ. They
are good comments to bear in mind as we set about working, but
I don't think this FAQ entry needs to "critique” SET, just say “why
is this different”.

Comments welcome!

Ian

====

Q. What is the relation of this work to Secure Electronic Transaction
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Electronic_Transaction

A. SET also attempted to address some of the issues that the Web
Payments Interest Group considers important. However:

* SET was only concerned with securing credit card transactions. This Working Group looks to ease integration of other payment schemes as well.
* SET depended on client certificates issued to card holders by their banks.
* SET was developed prior to common acceptance of ssl (and thus included functionality that is not directly addressed by this Working Group).
* SET rendered customer data opaque to the merchant.

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447




Received on Monday, 14 September 2015 00:36:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:44 UTC