W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > December 2014

Re: P2P Payments

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:48:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKE9kwpLmHkZJG_nvnjTRO6+zKvVpBup7LjUdSDtshR3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 5 December 2014 at 15:41, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2014-12-05 15:22, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/14 8:50 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-12-05 14:29, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/4/14 2:48 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> P2P payments are established in many places in the world.  My guess is
>>>>> that none of these are based on standard web technology because this
>>>>> technology simply isn't up to such tasks; it will take many years to
>>>>> get on par with "Apps", if even possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is sad but the web is lagging and the lag is increasing due to the
>>>>> success of Android and iOS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anders (on Android)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What does "Standard Web Technology" mean?
>>>>
>>>
>>> To simplify the discussion a bit: The web does not support client-based
>>> cryptographic keys (except through HTTPS CCA which doesn't not sign
>>> data).
>>>
>>
>> To me you are really saying: there isn't a W3C spec for user-agent-based
>> cryptography.
>>
>
> There is a spec and it is called WebCrypto.  See next section.
>
>
>>
>>> Well, the web actually *did* support signatures but the browser-vendors
>>> (and W3C...) sitting in their ivory towers simply declared browser
>>> plugins
>>> as a bad thing without coming up with any kind of "replacement scheme".
>>>
>>> WebCrypto does *not* match up with the browser-plugins.
>>>
>>
>> Why not? You can now store data in storage associated with a browser
>> that's local, since HTML5.
>>
>
> There are two issues which currently are not addressed.
>
> 1. This storage is usually not comparable in robustness to the
> HW-based solutions. Or to be fully correct this is outside of
> the WebCrypto spec which is a problem in itself.
>
> However, the biggest hurdle is that such data is governed by SOP
> which of course is fine from a security and privacy point of view
> but is at odds with payment systems.  Well, the WebPayment CG has
> a method for "neutralizing" SOP but I feel uneasy about it since
> it appears to be very complex.  Somebody ought to spend a bit more
> time on this spec.
>

Are you saying that all key material is governed by same origin policy?

So what's the difference between this and just using localStorage?

Sounds like a bit of a train smash, if so, for web payments and the
decentralized social web in general.  Are there any ways round it?


>
>
>>
>>> Seen from that perspective the web is effectively going *backwards* while
>>> the App-environment is security-wise getting stronger and stronger, with
>>> Apple Pay as a recent example.
>>>
>>
>> Apple Pay treats the device as the user-agent. Apple understands the
>> importance of the host operating system i.e., that browser based
>> user-agents != only kind of user agent.
>>
>> The Web is not about one kind of user agent, far from it, as mobile
>> platforms continue to demonstrate.
>>
>
> Sure.
>
>
>>> In theory the WebCrypto.Next project could address this "deficit" but
>>> I have
>>> to date not seen anything that has even the slightest chance of
>>> getting adoption.
>>>
>>
>> There is more than one kind of user-agent that can operate on the World
>> Wide Web or any other HTTP based network. Web Browser are overrated, if
>> you ask me :)
>>
>
> If you take out the browser from the equation life gets much simpler but I
> don't want to do that unless I have to.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>
>>>
>>> Anders
>>>
>>>
>>>> I do know of the Architecture of the World Wide Web (AWWW) which covers
>>>> the key components for building a Web-like abstraction atop the
>>>> Internet, comprised of:
>>>>
>>>> 1. URIs -- for denotation
>>>> 2. HTTP URIs -- for implicit denotation and identification (courtesy of
>>>> implicit Name->Address indirection for URI meaning interpretation)
>>>> 3. HTML - language and notation combo for describing and representing
>>>> documents
>>>> 4. RDF - language for representing entity relations using a variety of
>>>> loosely-coupled notations.
>>>>
>>>> 1-4 are the basis of the Web as we know it.
>>>>
>>>> #4 in regards to the "RDF" moniker is just a formalization (by the W3C)
>>>> of what was always intrinsic to the Web's original design [1][2].
>>>>
>>>> Being "Standard Web Technology" based (as I understand it) is a little
>>>> different from you continue frame this matter.
>>>>
>>>> Links:
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://bit.ly/evidence-that-the-world-wide-web-was-based-
>>>> on-linked-data-from-inception
>>>>
>>>> [2] http://bit.ly/world-wide-web-25-years-later
>>>> [3] http://www.openlinksw.com/data/turtle/general/GlossaryOfTerms.ttl
>>>> --
>>>> Glossary of Terms
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 14:48:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:37 UTC