3.1.   Identiverse May 28-31 in Vegas

OIDF has a breakout room if the WG is interested in meeting

• FAPI WG is confirmed for F2F meeting on Wednesday, May 29, 2024. Mike Leszcz sent a message to the FAPI mail list earlier today requesting those that plan to attend in person respond to that message. Virtual participants will use the standard FAPI WG Zoom session. (7 AM PDT)

3.2.   EIC June 4-7 in Berlin

• OIDF is hosting a brief workshop on a Tuesday morning. (2 hours)
• It will be on our strategic initiatives.

3.3.   Fall IIW

• Oct. 28. After lunch workshop 12:00 - 16:00
• Location TBD.

3.4.   OIDF Calendar

OIDF calendar on the website is slightly behind: https://openid.net/calendar/

4.1.   OF & OPIN Brasil

• OFBR—The high volume of FAPI re-certification requests to meet central bank mandates/milestones continued. The certification team is doing an excellent job managing the increased volume.
• OPIN – the transition to an updated single Brazil FAPI profile by May 1st is delayed.

4.2.   UAE

• Domingos leading the analysis of the draft FAPI profile with the Raidiam technical team.

4.3.   UIDAI

• Unique Identification Authority of India – Gail, Joseph and Mark had a call to discuss how UIDAI may get involved with OIDF. Follow-up call this week to take a deeper dive into some of the OIDF specs and certification.

4.4.   Chile

• Leaning towards the adoption of FAPI 2.0
• Initial draft of the spec published
• Bi-weekly call to coordinate FAPI certification
• 12 to 14 months away.

5.1.   486 "Clause 9" can't be right

PR #486

Wrong pointer. It should be "11" instead of "9".

Attempting to align document to ISO format detracts from readability.

Nat asked to use "clause" instead of "section" but Brian pointed out that there are many occurrences of "section" that is put by XML2RFC tooling and he has aligned to it. Nat withdrew the objection. During the call, Joseph approved it and the PR was merged.

5.2.   487 Grant Management isn't sufficiently mature nor are its future prospects certain enough to be making such a recommendation in a final OIDF specification

PR #487

Brian pointed out that recommending/referring to Grant Management, whose maturity level and progress activity are low, is inappropriate and suggested removing the bullet that mentions Grant Management and the reference from the Informative Reference section.

Joseph argued that giving more prominence to Grant Management will likely encourage implementations, thereby accelerating the development of the spec.

Nat suggested adding grant management to the list of FAPI 2.0 Framework bullet points in the Introduction of this document and removing the paragraph.

Brian argued against it, saying that mentioning grant management in the final specs would put undue pressure on vendors to implement it. He also wanted RAR to remain there.

Make it less authoritative (remove “is recommended” wording).

Nat suggested to move GM to the Introduction and remove the 4 bullets and the sentence, but it would remove RAR also.

Brian would like to remove references to outdated/unused drafts and move them to the implementer guidance document. FAPI 2 implementers guidance document is not available yet.

Only FAPI 1 version is available which hasn’t been updated in a long time.

https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/Financial_API_Implementation_And_Deployment_Advice.md

Dave once suggested to begin work on Implementation guidance after the security profile is finished but Brian has doubts that this document will be finalized.

Dima pointed out that just a single spec cannot build the ecosystem, but ecosystems need a collection of specs, and guidance like this is valuable.

The idea of creating a living document like “FAPI Framework Overview” and moving the paragraph there was suggested by Riffat.

The spec should only be about the spec itself and avoid concerns of the overall framework.

Dima suggested quickly creating a document about the wider context that can be “softly” referenced so SP can be finalized and the other document can be worked on.

Brian wanted this PR to be just merged and rest of the discussion to be continued but it did not achieve consensus.

Nat asked Brian if he has created an associated issue and the answer was no. It was agreed to create an issue and continue the discussion on it and on the list.

Nat will create an issue for creating “FAPI Framework Overview” document.

The meeting adjourned at 15:02.