[Openid-specs-fapi] Issue #272: FAPI-CIBA mentions 'FAPI lodging intent' doc but links only to pushed request object (openid/fapi)
issues-reply at bitbucket.org
Wed Oct 16 10:19:34 UTC 2019
New issue 272: FAPI-CIBA mentions 'FAPI lodging intent' doc but links only to pushed request object
The ID1 and current draft of FAPI-CIBA both contain this sentence:
> In scenarios where complex authorization parameters need to be conveyed from the Client to the AS, implementers should consider the "lodging intent" pattern described in \[FAPILI\]. The use of parameterized scope values or the use of an additional request parameter are both supported by this specification. Examples of both patterns are shown in \[FAPILI\].
but FAPILI is a link to [https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/Financial\_API\_Pushed\_Request\_Object.md](https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/Financial_API_Pushed_Request_Object.md) and that only shows one pattern \(not the two patterns FAPI-CIBA say it contains\) and it’s also not immediately obvious how to apply that to CIBA given that [https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/Financial\_API\_Pushed\_Request\_Object.md#markdown-header-54-authorization-request](https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/Financial_API_Pushed_Request_Object.md#markdown-header-54-authorization-request) only shows an Authorization Endpoint example and not a Backchannel Authentication Endpoint example.
I guess the FAPILI reference was intended to link to [https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/Financial\_API\_Lodging\_Intent.md](https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/Financial_API_Lodging_Intent.md) - it looks like I just added the wrong link when I created the text to solve [https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/228/ciba-and-lodging-intent](https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/issues/228/ciba-and-lodging-intent) :disappointed:
More information about the Openid-specs-fapi