Language to use on the certification pages for ID2 vs Final

Issue #362 open
Joseph Heenan created an issue

With FAPI1 final due to be published the certification team would appreciate any feedback on the necessary changes to the certification pages and conformance suite:

  1. The suite will retain the existing tests (currently labelled “FAPI-RW-ID2“) for some time, not least because many UK banks will continue targeting that version. Should these be renamed “FAPI1-Advanced-ID2” or perhaps “FAPI1-Advanced-SecondImplementersDraft”?
  2. New tests will be added for the final spec, should these be labelled “FAPI1-Advanced-Final”?
  3. The existing certification page ( https://openid.net/certification/#FAPI_OPs ) lists existing FAPI-RWID2 certifications. The intention is to add some text to clarify that these are for the “FAPI1-Advanced second implementers draft”, probably with a bit of extra explanation.
  4. Should we add a new tab to https://openid.net/certification/#FAPI_OPs for “FAPI1-Advanced-Final” or just a new table?

Comments (6)

  1. Joseph Heenan reporter

    As discussed on today’s call:

    1. We can’t change the title of the existing spec, so we should continue to refer to it as FAPI-RW ID2. We may need some text to explain the rename.
    2. No objections to this name.
    3. No objections to this.
    4. Preference was for a new table. The new table for ‘final’ should be the first on the page, with the current certifications ID2 appearing lower down.

  2. Dima Postnikov

    Are we going to differentiate between implementations and software providers? This might be useful for companies looking for software products to achieve their FAPI conformance.

  3. Joseph Heenan reporter

    @Dima Postnikov Good question. I think that’s something we can probably fit into the later rework (where we intend to have a database backed frontend).

    We could perhaps address it in the short term as well, by having two different tables (one for providers and one for deployments), does that work?

  4. Dima Postnikov

    @Joseph Heenan I think your suggestion of two tables will work. Let me know if you need any help.

  5. Log in to comment