- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 13:03:35 +0200
- To: Antonio Ruiz Martínez <arm@um.es>
- Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+eFz_LwNn29sKFPRbknKSohWhzwo3XJYw9Fj+0L-himePXObQ@mail.gmail.com>
> > > The second is explicitly calling out the need for the architecture to > allow payers and payees to make a transfer of value between one another, > even if they don't have a common payment instrument or scheme. i.e. The > Web must work like the Web is supposed to and have a mechanism to fill > the gaps and comment the two. > With this explanaition I understand your idea. But, from my point of view, in the end, this is making a kind of "P2P payment", which we could consider as a new payment scheme. +1 Yes. I wouldn't say it has to be P2P (person to person) it could be a business or government or any other entity on either end of the payment but the point is we ARE suggesting that there be a new payment scheme, called the Web. It will provide the glue between existing schemes so we have a truly decentralized system as Melvin suggests. On 26 May 2015 at 11:13, Antonio Ruiz Martínez <arm@um.es> wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > First of all, many thanks for you comments and explanations. > > El 22/05/2015 a las 15:27, Adrian Hope-Bailie escribió: > >> Hi Antonio, >> >> After reading the current version of the document, I have some >> comments and suggestions that I would like to share. I hope they are >> useful. >> >> >> Thanks for your input >> >> - Regarding user experience, I would mention that the payment >> process (initiation, purchase, obtaining a receipt and the >> product/service) should be uniform so that the user can see the >> process is conducted in the same way and, thus, it generates trust >> to the users. I do not know if this is what you want to mean with >> "harmonizing the checkout experience across e-commerce websites." >> >> >> Yes, this is what that sentence is intending to say. Perhaps >> "harmonizing the payment experience across all Web applications and >> sites." >> > > it sounds ok. > > >> I would also include that it should facilitate that the user can >> know the payment options available and even the (automatic) >> negotiation of these options. >> >> >> Is this not covered under the bullet: "*Provides payees and payers >> unencumbered knowledge and choice in how to undertake payments*"? >> > > May be. > > >> - I would also incluse some comment on that the way of making the >> encapsulation of (new or existing) payment schemes should be uniform >> and independent of the type of payment scheme (mobile or not). >> >> >> I think this is implied by the fact that we are "standardizing" this >> process. >> >> - From my point of view, I do not why know why the document needs >> the bullets "Enables monetization on the spectrum of Web to native >> apps" and "Bridges distributed value networks should part of the >> vision.". From my point of view, these issues are a consequence of >> "Encapsulates existing payment schemes and enables new schemes. " >> >> >> No, the first bullet you mention is explicitly talking about enabling >> new business models on the Web due to the reduction in friction and cost >> of payments (monetization). This speaks to things like enabling >> pay-per-click/read/watch/listen media consumption or >> similar which >> > > > This last explanation is clearer since the previous one, in my opinion, do > not involve something clear related to the defintion of the payment > architecture. > > can't be easily done today because the way payments are >> processed makes these business models non-viable. >> >> The second is explicitly calling out the need for the architecture to >> allow payers and payees to make a transfer of value between one another, >> even if they don't have a common payment instrument or scheme. i.e. The >> Web must work like the Web is supposed to and have a mechanism to fill >> the gaps and comment the two. >> > > With this explanaition I understand your idea. But, from my point of view, > in the end, this is making a kind of "P2P payment", which we could consider > as a new payment scheme. > > Best regards, > Antonio. > > >> - As for security and privacy, the sentences that mention "Supports >> a wide spectrum of security requirements and solutions" or similar >> should be reworded. Why a "wide spectrum"?. I consider that the >> security, privacy and regulatory issues have to be taken into in the >> development of an e-commerce website or e-payment solution. However, >> I consider that, e.g., the support of different authentication >> mechanisms is not part of the payment architecture. However, in the >> processes that are part of the payment process, for example, getting >> a payment offer, the payment architecture should define the >> mechanisms to protect this information. Then, I consider that in the >> bullet we could say that security, privacy and regulatory issues >> will be taken into account to design the different process of >> payment architecture that need to be securized. >> >> >> Our intention is to propose an architecture and ultimately define some >> standards. When it comes to regulation and security I think our approach >> is to cater for everything we know is out there but not prescribe how >> implementations are built. When it comes down to an implementer >> deploying a solution in a specific jurisdiction subject to specific laws >> and regulations they should not be restricted by the architecture in >> trying to adhere to these. On the other hand the architecture should >> describe at what points these issues come into scope and provide >> mechanisms to deal with them so that we make the life of the implementer >> easier. >> >> Best regards, >> Antonio. >> >> >> >> El 18/05/2015 a las 14:58, Adrian Hope-Bailie escribió: >> >> The IG are trying to finalize a short vision statement for the >> work we >> are undertaking, specifically with regards to the architecture >> we will >> be developing, for payments on the Web. >> >> The document is intended to express the technical principles we >> consider >> important in the design of the architecture and I'd appreciate >> some >> input on it's content. >> >> The document is also intended to be short, less than a page, and >> as such >> not too detailed. It's purpose is to frame the design and allow >> all >> stakeholders to agree up front that we are aligned on our vision. >> >> The audience should be broad, and not necessarily payments or Web >> technology experts, but since this is related to the design of a >> technical architecture the content will be technical. >> >> Please have a look at the first draft of this document and send >> me your >> feedback. >> >> >> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> >> p.s. Thanks Ian Jacobs for the initial work in getting this >> started. >> >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> Antonio Ruiz Martínez >> Department of Information and Communications Engineering >> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia >> 30100 Murcia - Spain >> http://ants.inf.um.es/~arm/ or http://webs.um.es/arm/ >> e-mail: arm@um.es <mailto:arm@um.es> or arm [at] um [dot] es >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > -- > -------------------------------------------------------- > Antonio Ruiz Martínez > Department of Information and Communications Engineering > Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia > 30100 Murcia - Spain > http://ants.inf.um.es/~arm/ or http://webs.um.es/arm/ > e-mail: arm@um.es or arm [at] um [dot] es > -------------------------------------------------------- >
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 11:04:04 UTC