[Openid-specs-fapi] FAPI WG Meeting Notes (2016-08-09)

Nat Sakimura nat at sakimura.org
Wed Aug 10 00:32:22 UTC 2016


 

 (Pretty formatted and linked version of the following meeting note is
available from
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09 ) 

FAPI WG MEETING NOTES (2016-08-09) [4]

Date & Time: 2016-08-09 23:00 UTC (16:00 PDT) - 23:59 UTC 

Location: GoToMeeting https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/321819862 [5] 

Attendees: Nat, Anoop, (Abel Rojas as guest), Edmund, Henrik 

Agenda 

 	* 1. Roll Call [6]
 	* 2. Adoption of the Agenda [7]
 	* 3. Document Restructuring [8]

	* 4. External Org Relationships [9] 

 	* 4.1. UK Open Banking Development Group [10]
 	* 4.2. ISO TC68 [11]

 	* 5. New & Open Issues [12]

	* 6. AOB [13] 

 	* 6.1. Next Call [14]

1.   ROLL CALL [15]

Each attendee introduced themselves. Abel Rojas is from Mexico City and
was observing as guest. Nat explained that to be a member, one has to
sign the IPR Contribution Agreement. 

2.   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA [16]

The agenda was adopted unanimously as previously distributed. 

3.   DOCUMENT RESTRUCTURING [17]

Nat introduced the document restructuring proposal. Current draft jumps
all around on different topics and is hard to read. Proposed new
structure is as follows, which is available on the WG
Wiki(https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/Editors-Draft-00 [18]) 

Financial Services - Financial API: 

1. Scope
2. Normative references
3. Terms and definitions
4. Symbols and Abbreviated terms
5. Getting Tokens
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Read Only Access
5.3. Write Access
6. Using Tokens
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Read Only Access
6.3 Write Access
7. Resource APIs
8. Security Considerations
8.1 TLS Considerations
9. Privacy Considerations
10. Acknowledgement
11. Bibliography
Annex A Financial Data API Level 1 (Normative)

Note that the section structures are according to the ISO Directive Part
2. 

> ASK: Discuss whether the proposed structure is adequate, and give mandate to editors to come up with a new WD.

The callers agreed to adopt the new structure and gave mandate to
editors to act on it.

4.   EXTERNAL ORG RELATIONSHIPS [19]

4.1.   UK OPEN BANKING DEVELOPMENT GROUP [20]

As the follow up to UK Open Banking Worg Group (OBWG) at ODI, Open
Banking Development Group (OBDG) has been announced. See ODI
Announcement
(http://theodi.org/news/announcing-the-open-banking-development-group?platform=hootsuite
[21]). 

Membership strucutre etc. are available at
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fUx0Hbc3k2F_NF4mXD55r2E_TKVU5KY6gDM1RJ0J1ds/edit#heading=h.g10eedc4thyf
[22]). 

Fee Structure: 

Corporate: GBP 5,000
SME: GBP 720

Should we seek to be a member (under SME) or try to establish a liaison?


> ASK: Discuss whether we should be a member or request a liaison relationship.

Anoop shared the information from Intuit's UK team on this. He is
concerned that we will end-up with multiple standards, where some of
them are local. Nat pointed out that we should at least be able to come
together on the security aspect and should strive to get the unified
API. Callers agreed that it would be good to try to open a liaison
channel. At the same time, each member should try to get the
communication going. 

Action: 

* Nat to draft liaison request
* Anoop to follow up with Intuit UK Team
* Henrik to follow up with Danish Bank, who is a member of OBDG

4.2.   ISO TC68 [23]

ISO TC68 will have a meeting this November. We probably should send a
liaison request. 

> ASK: To Mandate Nat to develop a liaison request.

Nat explained what is ISO TC68 and why it is valuable to submit the
finished specs to ISO in relationship with WTO TBT treaty. While OpenID
Process is WTO TBT treaty compliant and should count as an international
standard, in many countries, they are not aware of OIDF standard and
getting it published as ISO standard with ISO number is valuable in
these cases. 

Action: 

Nat to draft liaison request

Nat further explained the liaison process, that it has to go through the
liaison committee which is composed of Board EC and WG Chairs so that it
can be sent as OIDF and not as a WG. 

5.   NEW & OPEN ISSUES [24]

In the call, participants discussed the following issues listed in the
[issue tracker](https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues [25]) 

Since we were short of time, we have gone through only the following
issues: 

	* 

issue #2 [26]: Accounts: Total Pages and Page does not make sense 

> It is not meant to be physical page but "memory page". Some companies have hundreds of accounts and need "pagination". Assigned to Anoop. Anoop is going to send the example so that we can make a better "description"

	* 

issue #7 [27]: Add "Open Data" data set 

> There is no such thing in DDA. We need to create our own. David Tonge's group in UK is creating this. We need to get more info on it. At the same time, we should gather more data on each countries so that we can come up with a sensible one. Assigned to Anoop.

	* 

issue #8 [28]: Should hard coded paths be avoided 

> It is desirable not to constrain the path. DDA's path is just an example and implementations are free to create their own path as long as they adhere to the functional requirements. We will write in the main text that the paths in Annex A are only examples. Assigned to Nat.

Working Group members are asked to go through the rest of issues and put
comments in the tracker / discuss on the email list. 

 	* issue #4 [29]: Remove MessageFormat and references to it
 	* issue #10 [30]: Internationalization of strings
 	* issue #11 [31]: OAuth Profile should mandate RFC7636 (PKCE) for code
flow
 	* issue #12 [32]: OAuth Profile should mandate per AS redirect URI for
Clients with session comparison
 	* issue #13 [33]: TLS 1.0 should be banned
 	* issue #14 [34]: Allowed Redirection Client URI is not a defined term
 	* issue #15 [35]: Client Authentication, not Client Authorization
 	* issue #16 [36]: Client Authentication -- Do we need TLS mutual
authentication?
 	* issue #17 [1]: Incomplete sentence "In line with FFIEC (Federal
Financial Institutions Examination Council) guidance on Authentication
to mitigate security risks."
 	* issue #18 [37]: "Authorization token" is not a defined term in
RFC6749
 	* issue #19 [38]: Remove or Improve OAuth Interactions Diagram
 	* issue #20 [2]: Meaning of the Surrogate Identifier Clause not clear
 	* issue #21 [39]: Residual Data clause should be generalized and moved
to privacy considerations
 	* issue #22 [3]: Undefined OAuth response parameter user_id appears in
the text
 	* issue #23 [40]: How do I find AccountID to use in transfer?

The previous discussion results are recorded in each issue tickets. 

Some of the issue was related to the ambiguity etc. of the DDA spec that
we are basing on. These (#17 [1], #20 [2], #22 [3]) was assigned to
Anoop, and Anoop will follow up. 

Action: 

> WG members to follow up with the issues. Anoop to send notes especially on (#17 [1], #20 [2], #22 [3]).

6.   AOB [41]

6.1.   NEXT CALL [42]

	* 

Wed Aug 17, 2pm UTC (4pm Denmark, 7am PDT, 11pm JST) 

> Anoop will not be able to join this call, but he will send notes before it so that the group can discuss it.

Meeting was adjourned at 23:59 UTC. 

 

Links:
------
[1]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/17/incomplete-sentence-in-line-with-ffiec
[2]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/20/meaning-of-the-surrogate-identifier-clause
[3]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/22/undefined-oauth-response-parameter-user_id
[4] https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09
[5] https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/321819862
[6]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-roll-call
[7]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-adoption-of-the-agenda
[8]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-document-restructuring
[9]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-external-org-relationships
[10]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-uk-open-banking-development-group
[11]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-iso-tc68
[12]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-new-open-issues
[13]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-aob
[14]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-next-call
[15]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-id1
[16]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-id2
[17]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-id3
[18] https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/Editors-Draft-00
[19]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-id4
[20]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-id5
[21]
http://theodi.org/news/announcing-the-open-banking-development-group?platform=hootsuite
[22]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fUx0Hbc3k2F_NF4mXD55r2E_TKVU5KY6gDM1RJ0J1ds/edit#heading=h.g10eedc4thyf
[23]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-id6
[24]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-id7
[25] https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues
[26]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/2/accounts-total-pages-and-page-does-not
[27] https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/7/add-open-data-data-set
[28]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/8/should-hard-coded-paths-be-avoided
[29]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/4/remove-messageformat-and-references-to-it
[30]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/10/internationalization-of-strings
[31]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/11/oauth-profile-should-mandate-rfc7636-pkce
[32]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/12/oauth-profile-should-mandate-per-as
[33] https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/13/tls-10-should-be-banned
[34]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/14/allowed-redirection-client-uri-is-not-a
[35]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/15/client-authentication-not-client
[36]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/16/client-authentication-do-we-need-tls
[37]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/18/authorization-token-is-not-a-defined-term
[38]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/19/remove-or-improve-oauth-interactions
[39]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/21/residual-data-clause-should-be-generalized
[40]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/23/how-do-i-find-accountid-to-use-in-transfer
[41]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-id8
[42]
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/wiki/FAPI_Meeting_Notes_2016-08-09#rst-header-id9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-fapi/attachments/20160810/6e127360/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-fapi mailing list