• Next steps on PMI proposal from Zach
  • Issue 170
  • Issue 11
  • We had asked people to register any other issues.
• Payment Method Identifier discussion
  • Review of requirements for W3C-minted / other-minted identifiers
  • If URLs, what do they designated?
• Call for Consensus extended until 25 August, 1pmET
• TPAC
  • Agenda suggestions welcome
  • Chairs expect a draft agenda by 25 August

PMI Notes

• AdamR: "What we want is a delegation model that allows third parties to mint new, guaranteed unique identifiers for their payment methods"
• Tab: "URNs are thus purely downside due to increased verbosity."
• Tab: "[Use] plain identifiers from a registry if all you need is a way to uniquely identify things; plain origins if you just need it for a reasonable security/identity boundary that's shared across web and apps (and is obviously not meant to be resolved, since it's just pointing at a homepage); or URLs if and only if you're actually using what's at the end of the URL for something worthwhile"
• Requirement: Some assurance of authenticity of payment app to support a proprietary payment method (e.g., based on origin)
• Question: Do we want proprietary payment method owners to be able to delegate authority to other origins to implement apps that support the method?
• Zach: I want to be able to prevent arbitrary payment apps for claiming support for proprietary payment methods. If we can't prevent this, we're going to have a hard time convincing existing players to enter into our ecosytem, which makes adoption by merchants more difficult.
• Zach: We both want payment methods that are completely open, somewhat open, and not open at all to be able to play in the ecosystem.

For next week

• Testing plan (Shane)
• Draft agenda for TPAC