- From: Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:48:39 +0900
- To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE-+aYLF4OHELod3P-nkHK0JtCxSSjaoiG506m-6eSBXOiMQ+g@mail.gmail.com>
maybe the UA can accept before/next server node information via header to prevent phishing or parming. mozpay is good for single server node. ECIS is for multiple server nodes. mozpay and ECIS can co-exist. some payment provider accept the request via ECIS and process payment with mozpay and return the result via ECIS ECIS is like transparent layer for independent service providers. ECIS request/response can be implemented not just HTTP/JSON but with custom URI scheme or window.postMessage without server interactions. regards mountie. On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Anders Rundgren < anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Mountie, > I'm interested in this but I have some questions as well :-) > We can discuss this in a break at the TPAC. > > What is less than clear is what role the UA plays, or to be more correct: > what kind of UA enhancements you believe are needed in the various steps? > > If the user's identity is based on PKI, there won't be an identity > provider step > except for calling OCSP or similar, right? > > I'm still a bit reluctant to specific UA technology for payments like > Mozpay; a > good generic system should be able to serve a wider range of applications. > > kr > Anders Rundgren > -- Mountie Lee PayGate CTO, CISSP Tel : +82 2 2140 2700 E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net ======================================= PayGate Inc. THE STANDARD FOR ONLINE PAYMENT for Korea, Japan, China, and the World
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 06:49:23 UTC