[Openid-specs-fapi] External : Open Banking NG
Chris.Michael at openbanking.org.uk
Wed Oct 30 16:35:43 UTC 2019
The OBIE example below is where all non-essential steps are removed from a redirect authentication. This solves some use cases but, as you state, is notb as good as Apple Pay, especially in a Point of Sale scenario. It would however work for an app-app (e.g. online purchase via a mobile app) scenario.
As I am sure you are away, the CIBA standard we developed with/by FAPI WG members does allow much better UX which gets closer to Apple Pay. This is also included in the OBIE standard. However, no ASPSPs are implementing this yet, as it has not been specifically required by any regulators at this time.
Here is a working demo of one of the 4 x supported CIBA flows
I like your concept below, however creating additional TPP roles may take some time for the industry to get to grips with
Head of Technology
+44 7767 372277
2 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YN
Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn
From: Openid-specs-fapi <openid-specs-fapi-bounces at lists.openid.net> on behalf of Anders Rundgren via Openid-specs-fapi <openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net>
Sent: 30 October 2019 15:49
To: Financial API Working Group List
Cc: Anders Rundgren
Subject: External : [Openid-specs-fapi] Open Banking NG
This picture from OBIE shows a payment scenario that is very far from Apple Pay:
Yeah, using various kinds of "workarounds and fixes" it can surely be improved, but will that really scale?
I have updated the "Dual-mode" Open Banking API proposal which if implemented should make Open Banking payments entirely "on par" with Apple Pay but with the added advantage that it builds on A2A (Account-to-Account) transactions which also is compliant with P2P (Person-to-Person) payments:
To make the proposal more acceptable I have introduced an (optional) TTP role which (unlike PIS) is already known by payment professionals; the Payment Gateway.
On 2019-10-22 07:16, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> A months has passed and it begins looking quite promising:
> Updated: https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/saturn/openbanking-api-for-saturn.pdf
> On 2019-09-21 10:26, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>> This is probably not a use case people subscribed to this mailing list is particularly interested in.
>> However, there are a couple of reason why this is a relevant issue:
>> - If the bank can use the API themselves it will likely be better maintained
>> - If the consumer payment market rather prefers schemes like Swish, TWINT, MobilePay https://empsa.org/ , <https://empsa.org/> FAPI and similar Open Banking APIs could fall in importance
>> FWIW, I have just started (yesterday...) to investigate how Open Banking APIs could work in a local scenario:
>> Swedbank uses the Berlin Group API but I guess the differences (on a higher level) compared to FAPI are not that big.
>> Anyway, since I'm not versed in OAuth2, I wonder if anybody out there have any ideas how to "patch" OAuth2 in such a way that an Open Banking API implementation could work in both local and remote mode without moving [too] many parts? Local mode = trusted service not needing user consent.
Openid-specs-fapi mailing list
Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email is from Open Banking Limited, Company Number 10440081. Our registered and postal address is 2 Thomas More Square, London, E1W 1YN. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Open Banking Limited.
More information about the Openid-specs-fapi