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

Re: Web Payments - 21 years ago

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:13:03 +0100
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5644D6AF.5020200@gmail.com>
On 2015-11-12 16:44, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
>
>
> On 12 November 2015 at 15:12, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 2015-11-12 11:54, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
>
>         By "you", I assume you mean the WG (or at least the IG who chartered the WG)?
>
>
>     Right.
>
>
>         I think you have misunderstood the way the WG specifications will play out.
>
>         Let's look at what is being standardised (ignoring for a moment the pre-payment stuff like registration):
>
>         1. A very high level flow (request from payee -> response from payer) all other
>
>     > comms are out of scope and hanlded by the payer (or their wallet/app/agent) and
>     > payee (or their PSP/bank etc)
>
>     I think I've got that.
>
>
>         2. The messages that form part of this flow. Although clearly these
>
>     > messages will be "envelopes" for payment method specific data as required by implementors.
>
>     Here you immediately run into a problem:
>     How can you interpret/decipher currently unknown/undocumented payment method specific data?
>     Answer: You cannot.
>
>
> Why do you need to?
>
> If the messages provide an envelope for each payment scheme to insert their own data then the scheme can define whatever mechanism it chooses to provide end-to-end security.
>
> Imagine payment scheme X decides to leverage the standard and publishes their specification for how payer and payee PSP's must construct the request and response messages.
>
>
> Once the payer app (mobile app, web based app, it's not material) receives the payee's request it will contain an indication that the payee supports payment scheme X and the payment scheme X data that the apyer requires (per payment scheme X's specification). Since the payer app also supports payment scheme X it knows how to interpet the scheme specific data in the request and construct the response to the PSP.

In the web case I guess you don't expect this app to be hosted by https://arbitrarymerchant.com because then it doesn't matter how much signatures etc. you put in the request since the concept of Trusted GUI doesn't exist on the Web, right?

So we are probably talking about redirect or IFRAME solutions to trusted providers.
AFAICT a browser/wallet only have to supply a URL to make this work.
Does maybe the CM API suffice?

I don't see much value in the standardizing tunneled payment requests to for example PayPal.
Merchants need it?

That is, unless we are actually talking about Browser Wallets like the Google proposal.

Anders

>
> The process for doing this may include a call-out to a third party token provider, an authorization flow that involves hardware security, some entirely proprietary process that only certified payment scheme X payer app developers have access to The point is that once the request has been received by the payer app anything can happen before the app construct a response (with appropriate scheme specific data) and sends it back.
>
> Very simple example:
> The scheme may give each payee PSP a unique certificate that they must link to in their payment request (and store under the same origin as the requesting site maybe?) and the payer app must encrypt response data using the keys from that certificate.
>
> Open scheme example:
> The Bitcoin community decide on a format for exchanging payee wallet address (and signing the message to prevent tampering). Payer apps that support the community defined scheme must make a payment to the supplied address and provide a response (per the community defined format) that helps the payee trace the payment.
>
>
>     In addition, if you (for the sake of the discussion) applied this thinking to my PoC
>     it wouldn't work since it already defines a specific, and for the rest of this
>     end-2-end-secured payment system carefully matched request/response pair.
>
>     Well, you can of course hope that the rest of the payment parties won't insist on
>     end-2-end-security and similar stuff which is in direct conflict with the IG/WG vision.
>
>     Anders
>
>
>
>         3. A WebIDL API that allows a UA to mediate the flow of messages between payer and payee.
>
>         In the "app" world (mostly only on mobile platforms) nothing is stopping implementors from simply passing the request received by the browser on to the mobile platform so that the standard app selection pattern can be used to allow the payer to select the payment app they want to use.
>
>         On the desktop (where this pattern is less well defined) I expect that these will be "Web apps" (i.e. hosted by a PSP and served via HTTP to the browser that will render the UI defined by the PSP in HTML).
>
>         Browser vendors may choose to allow hosting payment apps "in-the-browser" but that is not guaranteed and need not be offered at the expense of other options.
>
>         My feeling is that this architecture accommodates such a wide variety of deployment scenarios that it will be able to leverage the platform neutrality of the Web but also the various benefits of "native" where appropriate.
>
>         On 12 November 2015 at 10:59, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>             On 2015-11-12 09:09, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
>
>                 A New York Times article from 1994 describes the first online payment:
>         http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/12/business/attention-shoppers-internet-is-open.html
>
>
>             For on-line payments (and reservations) using credit-cards and not relying on a
>             super-provider, nothing has really changed during these 21 years.  Considering its
>             importance these days, I'm inclined to say that things have rather gone backward :-)
>
>             The only noticeable action is on the "App" side which makes me wonder why you
>             didn't consider hooking into this force instead of betting on a "Browser Wallet"
>             which will be difficult to standardize [1] and keep up-to-date with the market,
>             while the "App" folks can do updates whenever there is a need.
>
>             Cheers,
>             Anders
>
>             1] with respect to
>             - Payment UI ownership/branding
>             - Deployment model
>             - Possibly different flows of information
>             - Possibly encrypted data
>             - Enrollment
>             - Security solutions
>             - The desire among payment providers keeping their code secret
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2015 18:13:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:43 UTC