[OpenID-Specs-eKYC-IDA] eKYC and IDA WG Agenda for 11-11-2020

Achim Schlosser achim.schlosser at enid.eu
Thu Nov 12 11:36:18 UTC 2020


Okay,


Having run large master data management systems in the past (where this separation piece is always a big issue) - just wanted to point out that separating by blanks will lead to issues.

But it's not a eKYCA topic I guess.


Best

Achim 

On 12.11.20, 12:30, "Kai Lehmann" <kai.lehmann at 1und1.de> wrote:

    Hi Achim,

    we are merely duplicating the description from the OIDCC spec for the respective name-related claims. As the claims from the OIDCC are applicable to eKYC IDA as well, we strive for consistency in their meaning. That said, the description does not exclude the space character itself as part of a name. An RP cannot simply split the name value by space character in order to separate the names. The same applies to the street_address field within the address claim for instance. Many implementors (us including) attempted and failed to separate street name and street number reliably.

    Regards,
    Kai

    On 11.11.20, 17:10, "Openid-specs-ekyc-ida on behalf of Achim Schlosser via Openid-specs-ekyc-ida" <openid-specs-ekyc-ida-bounces at lists.openid.net on behalf of openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net> wrote:

        Hi,


        Given PR44 is already merged:

        Note that in some cultures, people can have multiple family names or no family name; all can be present, with the names being
        separated by space characters

        Using spaces to separate names is generally not advisable given last names quite often contain blanks themselves. In German/Dutch this is quite usual (“van” “von”, or
         composite names). This will be problematic in case one does not use a separation character that is not used within the names themselves.


        Best

        Achim


        From: Openid-specs-ekyc-ida <openid-specs-ekyc-ida-bounces at lists.openid.net> on behalf of Mark Haine via Openid-specs-ekyc-ida <openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net>
        Reply to: OpenID eKYC Identity Assurance Working Group <openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net>
        Date: Wednesday, 11. November 2020 at 12:57
        To: "openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net" <openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net>
        Cc: Mark Haine <mark at considrd.consulting>
        Subject: [OpenID-Specs-eKYC-IDA] eKYC and IDA WG Agenda for 11-11-2020




        Here is the suggested agenda for today’s WG:


        1. Brief review of external Orgs & Event



        1. 
        Agenda Items


             1. Incorporation of Santander contribution


                  1. Name
                  2. Separate or integrated


             1. 
        Any other discussion points?



        1. PRs & Issues


             1. PR #44 <https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/pull-requests/44> – updated descriptions for 3 * name claims
             2. PR #42 <https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/pull-requests/42> – Age verification
             3. PR #47 <https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/pull-requests/47> – Scope
             4. PR #41 <https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/pull-requests/41> – types of electronic signature
             5. Issue #1209 <https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/issues/1209/attachments-with-evidence-documents> – Attaching evidence documents
             6. Issue #1210
         <https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/issues/1210/possibility-to-abort-transaction-when> - Abort transaction
             7. Issue #1217 <https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/issues/1217/add-guidance-of-where-the-use-of-userinfo> – where to use userInfo endpoint
             8. Review of other issues if we have time


        Mark




        +44 (0) 777 555 0344 | mark at considrd.consulting | considrd.consulting <https://www.considrd.consulting/> | 30
         The Grange, Irvine.  KA11 2EU
         <https://www.considrd.consulting/>





















More information about the Openid-specs-ekyc-ida mailing list