Skip to content

The definition of "Single Use" #67

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
JamesMBligh opened this issue Apr 3, 2019 · 4 comments
Open

The definition of "Single Use" #67

JamesMBligh opened this issue Apr 3, 2019 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
feedback A general placeholder for feedback.

Comments

@JamesMBligh
Copy link
Contributor

In the ACCC draft rules it is specified that authorisation can be provided by a customer for "Single Use" as opposed to a duration of authorisation.

It is proposed that, for an authorisation that is "Single Use", only an access token will be returned and no refresh token will be returned. As a result, once the access token as expired, no further data retrieval will be possible and the authorisation is effectively also expired.

Does anyone have any concerns with this approach?

@JamesMBligh JamesMBligh added the feedback A general placeholder for feedback. label Apr 3, 2019
@NationalAustraliaBank
Copy link

NAB is supportive of this approach

@WestpacOpenBanking
Copy link

We support this approach, but note that customers are likely to experience token lifetime with joint consents unless access tokens are not granted until both parties authorise the accounts in a consent. We therefore suggest that approach.

@JamesMBligh
Copy link
Contributor Author

The ACCC CDR Rules calls out that the need for a Bank to implement a Joint Account Management Service that will operate independently of the Consumer Data Request Service.

The implication of this is that a Single Use consent will only allow for the sharing of joint accounts that had previously be authorised for sharing by the joint account holders via the Joint Account Management Service.

@JamesMBligh
Copy link
Contributor Author

BTW, this position is now represented in the InfoSec decision proposal 64

If there are no more comments I will close this issue with the acknowledgement that further comments can be provided on DP64.

-JB-

@JamesMBligh JamesMBligh self-assigned this May 5, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feedback A general placeholder for feedback.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants