[Openid-specs-fapi] Fine-grained authorization for payments

Fri Mar 24 02:53:25 UTC 2017

What is on the FAPI specs right now is primarily what was in DDA. Thus, only intra-bank transfer is captured. 

But the WG envisioned inter-bank transfer as a use case from the beginning. 

--

PLEASE READ :This e-mail is confidential and intended for the

named recipient only. If you are not an intended recipient,

please notify the sender  and delete this e-mail.

From: Openid-specs-fapi [mailto:openid-specs-fapi-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Tom Jones via Openid-specs-fapi
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 9:53 AM
To: Dave Tonge <dave.tonge at momentumft.co.uk>; Financial API Working Group List <openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-fapi] Fine-grained authorization for payments

The context of these emails is a bit unclear. The only piece in the spec on the FAPI site is a transfer, which I take to be a intra-bank transfer.

It is unclear if the above is about a payment object sent to the bank of the "user" making a payment to a bank account of a "recipient,

or if it is about a payment object sent to the bank of the 'user' requesting that the bank make a payment to a previously established correspondent of the 'user'

In any case the receipt might be only an acknowledgement that a payment will occur on a future date, or it might be a completely async response to money becoming available to the recipient.

I guess that more context of the problem being solved would be helpful.   ..tomj

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Dave Tonge via Openid-specs-fapi <openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net> > wrote:

Hi Tom, Nat

Thanks for the replies.

Tom - as Nat said I fully expect the FI's to run their own checks, I'm just talking about kicking off the process. 

In Europe with PSD2 we have legislation that bank customers can use PISPs (payment initiation service providers) to initiate payments. 

Nat, thanks I didn't realise about the request object registration endpoint - it seems an excellent fit. The OIDC spec isn't particularly clear about it though, but https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-12#section-10.3 paragraph D explains it fully.

The 4 suggested endpoints look good, although I would maybe join 3 and 4?

I have a couple of follow up questions:

1. Would you envisage passing the fine-grained payment details in the claims property of the request object?

2. The "commit of intent" API I see as being an auth code flow. Essentially the resource owner is granting access to a very specific resource (a single payment transaction). However if we follow an auth code flow then we would expect to end up with an access token. That token could then be used to commit the intent. Does this make sense to you?

Thanks again - I will feed this into the UK Open Banking group.

I'm also working on the ability to share some of the proposed endpoints form that group with the FAPI WG.

Thanks

Dave

On 23 March 2017 at 20:57, Nat Sakimura via Openid-specs-fapi <openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net> > wrote:

Hi

Just briefly on the point of the outbound access by the banks.

Banks can provide request object registration endpoint that produces requiest_uri.
This should solve the problem. In fact, this was one of the main use case.
That's why the spec is saying "The request_uri value MUST be reachable by the Authorization Server, and SHOULD be reachable by the Client." in section 6.2 of the OpenID Connect Core.

I do not think UMA has anything to do here.

Also, I should note that any transfer/payment request is only request.
After the request is being authorized by the user and committed, banks needs to screen it for AML purposes etc. So, having sufficient funds alone is not a sufficient condition for it to go through. Payment will not be synchronous.

So, in general, form the API point of view,

1. Creation of the intent (registering of the request object: request object endpoint)
2. Commit of the intent (preferably done on a second channel: authorization endpoint and user questioning)
3. Payment status check / callback / notification (status check endpoint)
4. Getting Payment result / receipt (payment result endpoint)

are needed.

Also, in case of the money transfer, it often is required to have:

0.1. Destination information verification endpoint
0.2. Pre-registered destination account information endpoint

I have a bit of documentation explaining what NRI as a backend service provider for banks does in Japan, but they are in Japanese...

Best,

---
Nat Sakimura
Chairman, OpenID Foundation

On 2017-03-24 01:16, Dave Tonge via Openid-specs-fapi wrote:

Dear FAPI WG Members

When it comes to payments, standard OAuth scopes are too
coarse-grained to 
be the sole communication of the "access" to be authorised. The most
common scenario
for payments via a FAPI API is likely to be one-off payments of a
specific amount
to a specific payee (and from a specific account at a specific time).

If the FAPI spec doesn't address the communication of this data, there
are likely
to be multiple incompatible implementions.

Proposals that I've come accross include having a "staging" endpoint
where the 
client registers "intent" to perform an action by sending a payload
with the 
specific payment details and receives a "ticket id". This ticket id is
then 
included along with high level scopes in an authorization code flow.
The 
ticket id could be included in the claims parameter: 
http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ClaimsParameter
[1] 
or could be part of the request object:
http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#JWTRequests [2]

While it could be preferable to avoid having a separate staging
endpoint - and 
put any extra data in a signed request object, the reality is that the
request 
could be too large. While this could be solved by passing in a
"request_uri" 
that points at a request object,  this has issues as many banks
currently have 
strict restrictions on outbound network access. Also it seems that
the 
"request_uri" option would work best when the parameters in the
request object 
are fairly static.

What do FAPI members think about this problem?
Are there existing standards that we could refer, for example it would
seem 
that the UMA spec would help here?
https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/rec-uma-core.html [3]

Thanks

Dave

--

Dave Tonge
CTO
 [4]
10 Temple Back, Bristol, BS1 6FLt: +44 (0)117 280 5120 <tel:+44%20117%20280%205120> 

Moneyhub Enterprise is a trading style of Momentum Financial
Technology Limited which is authorised and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority ("FCA"). Momentum Financial Technology is entered
on the Financial Services Register (FRN 561538) at
fca.org.uk/register <http://fca.org.uk/register>  [5]. Momentum Financial Technology is registered
in England & Wales, company registration
number 06909772 © . Momentum Financial Technology Limited
2016. DISCLAIMER: This email (including any attachments) is subject
to copyright, and the information in it is confidential. Use of this
email or of any information in it other than by the addressee is
unauthorised and unlawful. Whilst reasonable efforts are made to
ensure that any attachments are virus-free, it is the recipient's sole
responsibility to scan all attachments for viruses. All calls and
emails to and from this company may be monitored and recorded for
legitimate purposes relating to this company's business. Any opinions
expressed in this email (or in any attachments) are those of the
author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Momentum
Financial Technology Limited or of any other group company.

Links:
------
[1] http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ClaimsParameter
[2] http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#JWTRequests
[3] https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/rec-uma-core.html
[4]
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmoneyhubenterprise.com%2F <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmoneyhubenterprise.com%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGUnR5opJv5S1uZOVg8aISwPKAv3A> &sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGUnR5opJv5S1uZOVg8aISwPKAv3A
[5] http://fca.org.uk/register

_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-fapi mailing list
Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net <mailto:Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net> 
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-fapi

_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-fapi mailing list
Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net <mailto:Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net> 
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-fapi

-- 

Dave Tonge

CTO

 <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmoneyhubenterprise.com%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGUnR5opJv5S1uZOVg8aISwPKAv3A> 

10 Temple Back, Bristol, BS1 6FL

t: +44 (0)117 280 5120 <tel:+44%20117%20280%205120> 

Moneyhub Enterprise is a trading style of Momentum Financial Technology Limited which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA"). Momentum Financial Technology is entered on the Financial Services Register (FRN 561538) at fca.org.uk/register <http://fca.org.uk/register> . Momentum Financial Technology is registered in England & Wales, company registration number 06909772 © . Momentum Financial Technology Limited 2016. DISCLAIMER: This email (including any attachments) is subject to copyright, and the information in it is confidential. Use of this email or of any information in it other than by the addressee is unauthorised and unlawful. Whilst reasonable efforts are made to ensure that any attachments are virus-free, it is the recipient's sole responsibility to scan all attachments for viruses. All calls and emails to and from this company may be monitored and recorded for legitimate purposes relating to this company's business. Any opinions expressed in this email (or in any attachments) are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Momentum Financial Technology Limited or of any other group company.

_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-fapi mailing list
Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net <mailto:Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net> 
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-fapi

-- 

..tom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-fapi/attachments/20170324/a700d3f4/attachment-0001.html>