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!



Q. What is the relation of this work to 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