ACCC & DSB Data Holder Working Group Agenda & Meeting Notes (6th of August 2020) - ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards GitHub Wiki
When: Weekly every Thursday at 3pm-4.30pm AEST
Location: WebEx, quick dial +61262464433,785383900%23%23
Meeting Details:
Desktop or Mobile Devices
https://csiro.webex.com/csiro/j.php?MTID=m7c39ee9db5e5892ab35cd0bd7bbf94ce
Once connected to your meeting remember to start your audio and video
Please mute when you are not speaking.
Video Conferencing (VC) Rooms
Use the remote control or touch panel and dial the number indicated below:
External VC Room: [email protected]
Phones - AUDIO ONLY
- Primary Australia: +61 2 6246 4433
- Quick Dial: +61262464433,785383900%23%23
- Other Global Numbers: https://conferencing.csiro.au/Call-in.php
- Meeting Number/Access Code: 785 383 900
- Introductions
- Outstanding actions
- CDR Stream updates
- Q&A
- Any other business
Meeting notes
- 5 min will be allowed for participants to join the call.
Type | Topic | Update |
---|---|---|
Questions and Answers | Please submit all new pre-submited questions to [email protected] | New process to triage, assign, track and respond to questions raised by the Community. Questions and Answers can be now be found here: CDR Support |
Maintenance | Banking Maintenance Iteration 04 |
Key Phase Dates Phase 1: Retrospective and Backlog Grooming - 9th July 2020 commencement. 2 weeks duration Phase 2: Consultation - 22nd July 2020 commencement. 4 weeks duration Phase 3: Approvals and Documentation - 19th August 2020 commencement. 2 week duration Please contact [email protected] for an invite to the series |
Maintenance | Banking Maintenance Iteration 04 |
Link to Summary Link to Board of changes |
Standards | Version 1.4.0 Proposed Changes | Board of changes is located here |
Decision Proposal - All | Decision Proposal 135 - November 2020 Consent Obligations: fixes and clarifications | Decision Proposal 135 |
Decision Proposal - All | Decision Proposal 136 - November 2020 Consent Transition Guidance | Decision Proposal 136 |
Decision Proposal - Energy | Decision Proposal 111 - Generic Tariff Data Payload | Decision Proposal 111 |
Event - Workshop | Enhanced Error Handling - Online Workshop 03 - Consumer Experience | Link to register is here |
Event - Workshop | DSB & ACCC - Data Quality Workshop 01 | Link to register is here |
Event - Workshop |
Energy Rules Framework workshop 2–4pm Full details with be shared with registered participants closer to the date. |
** CLOSES TODAY** Link to register can be found here |
Website | New Data Standards Body Events Page now Live! | You can access this under "Communications" and select "Events" - link to page here |
Guidance | Joint Account Guidance | Find on the CDR-Support Portal here |
Action | Change name of the call to be 'Consumer Data Right Implementation Working Group Call' or 'CDRIWGC' | Effective from 13th of August 2020 |
Provides a weekly update on the activities of each of the CDR streams and their workplaces
- ACCC Rules
- ACCC CDR Register (Technical)
- DSB CX Standards
- DSB Technical Standards - Energy & Banking
- Presentation on November 2020 Changes as per Decision Proposal 135 and 136
Questions will be received by the community via WebEx chat before the questions are opened to the floor. Participants can pre-submit questions to the DSB mailing box.
Currently received pre-submitted questions:
Ticket # | Question | Answer |
---|---|---|
59 | Hi, Can you please clarify the ErrorMetrics in Get Metrics endpoint. The description on CDS says: 'Number of calls resulting in error due to server execution over time'. Does this include all 4xx and 5xx errors apart from 429? We assume it does not include 429 (too many request) errors as these are part of RejectionMetrics. Thanks | - |
58 | There are a few requests raised on github that I’m interested in, could someone please review/respond to these? – https://github.com/ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards-maintenance/issues/274 https://github.com/ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards-maintenance/issues/268 https://github.com/ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards-maintenance/issues/255 |
All issues should have answers added to them |
- | This questions refers to Traffic Thresholds for Public Traffic (for product data requests). The only threshold defined for public traffic is “300 TPS total across all consumers (additive to secure traffic)”. This is fine for all consumers, but what about 1 individual consumer? If 1 consumer tries to consume all 300TPS, it could starve others from the service. Can we define lower thresholds for individual consumers? So for example, if 1 IP Address source was to hit our product reference data with 50TPS, we could give them an error… even though we have not yet hit the 300TPS across all consumers, it is obvious that this one individual is doing too much. We propose that the unattended traffic thresholds be applied to individuals querying the public API’s. Is this the intent? | |
55 | In the CDR specification it states: Each API end point that can return multiple records will stipulate whether pagination is supported for the end point or not. For end points that will return less than a reasonably sized page of results in the majority of circumstances support for paging may not be included. In the case that a Data Holder doesn't support paging for an API does this mean that the page and page-size filters would be ignored by the Data Holder API and that no page links (first, next, pref, last) and meta data (totalRecords, totalPages) would be returned. | |
54 | The CDR Specification only allows enumerated values of "X2P1.01" for attribute service in TransactionDetails. With reference to https://cdr-support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/900001832346-Get-Transaction-Details-Error-Return where service being empty string would be valid response if extendedData was not available. As we are using the swagger specification published by consumer data standards the models we generate only allow values of "X2P1.01". In this instance should we be modifying the swagger specification to allow enumerated service of NONE: "" so that we can set the service to "". | |
- | We have a feature in our online banking which permits customers to upload an excel file in a specified format with payment to details (accounts and amounts). This supports payment disbursements, typically for payroll. The mechanics of the payment are that there is a single payment made from the customer’s source account (let’s call it account A) to a suspense account (let’s call it Account S) and then the disbursement payments to the specific destination accounts (let’s call them Accounts X, Y, and Z) contained in the excel file are made from the suspense account. Within the BankingScheduledPayment schema there is one object called from and also the paymentSet array. Which of the following three representations would you expect:
We would expect 2, but note that there will never be transactions corresponding to a payment from Account A to any of Accounts X, Y, or Z arising from this process. |
- TBA
# | Question | Answer/ Action |
---|---|---|
# | ||
# | ||
# | ||
# | ||
# | ||
# | ||
# |
Other business
- TBA
- TBA
- TBA