-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 63
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? #65
Comments
To support enrollment in a service or a future charge, I propose that the
|
I'm not sure that is specific enough to be a payment obligation, perhaps it should be a maximum rather than an estimated? |
I'm not sure we need to do anything special to support this use case, except perhaps document that authorizations are performed with an amount of "0". How capture happens (or not) is something between a merchant and their PSP. Everything else can be explained on the merchants website, as it happens today. |
We might need to be careful there, there are some payment methods that don’t actually support zero amount authorizations.
|
Regarding the payment methods that don't support zero amount authorizations: do these payment methods support periodic billing or future charge? |
Yes, they can - additionally you may want to actually place a hold on the payment instrument, or verify the amount you might charge in the future is actually present right now (the same is true for periodic billing - you may not be charging the user for another 30 days, but you want to verify now they actually are likely to be able to cover the charge). Sometimes this charge isn’t necessarily visible or clear to the user, but still happens (Uber is a good example, you aren’t charged until the ride is completed, but there is still a charge being placed for an actual amount when you call the car).
|
In the existing "regulations", the authorisation with amount=0 belongs to the list of recurring confusing questions. There are a lot of misinterpretations around it by the various providers. In these cases, amount 0 is an inheritage of the clumsy protocols where one cannot send a request for anything else then for authorizing a payment...and the message thus imposes an amount, the tricky way to use it being to set it to 0. When it comes to payment, if an amount = 0 is in the check-out, it implies that there is no consumer consent. In the beginning of the payment process (I reserve my hotel room), the amount may be "estimated", this condition has to be clear for payee and payer.
|
Zach wrote:
I can't find my response on this subject earlier in this issue - I could have sworn I posted it. In any case, we should >not< propagate odd semantics of zero or -1 for amount into our language. If an acquirer is looking for an amount=0 to mean something, that should be translated out of the standard message, not embedded in it. |
+1 |
I'm a big +1 to not carrying bad design into our API due to legacy of any underlying systems. Payment apps and PSPs should deal with a payment request for a "reservation" or "enrollment" or "some payment type" and translate this into the appropriate set of parameters in their messages to the scheme/network. |
Migrating to w3c/payment-request#52. |
Migrated from https://github.com/WICG/paymentrequest/issues/43
@ianbjacobs:
@adrianba:
@mattsaxon:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: