Meeting Minutes

Release Plan

• v1.29.1 was published on 28/02/2024, see release notes for details
• The outcomes of MI18 will be published in v1.30.0 and the team has commenced staging changes.

Maintenance Iteration Review

A summary of the Maintenance Iteration Review Outcomes listed in the agenda was provided. As with all reviews, the DSB remains open to improving Maintenance Iteration and Consultation processes.

The miro board showing synthesised feedback is available here.

Requirements Analysis

Common

• #610 Addition of an (18 or over) Age Verification Flag
  • This issue is not a candidate for MI18.
  • No update, waiting on policy information that can be shared publicly.

Errors

• #412 Proposal to change specific error codes from MUSTs to SHOULDs
  • May be withdrawn, no progress for ANZ to report.

Maintenance Iteration 18 Candidates

Another two candidates were added to the list of candidates for this iteration. See #543 and #632 in Security.

MI 18

• #629 Maintenance Iteration 18 Holistic Feedback
  • An overview of the seven comments on this issue was provided, they are made up of minor corrections there were no objections to the non-breaking changes.

CX

• #577 Withdrawal of a SUI by an Account Holder leaving an "Empty" Authorisation
  • The CX Team is developing artefacts, including updates to the CX Guidelines, on joint accounts and secondary user instructions.
• #633 Collection Consents - Authorisation Amendment
  • This is not a new requirement, it is clarifying the need for ADRs to supply the CDR Arrangement ID. The proposed standard is being drafted for review.

Security

• #543 refresh_token_expires_at and sharing_expires_at claims listed as MUST be supported

  • This new candidate is intended to align documentation with the final FAPI 1.0 migration changes.
  • ADRs appear to be relying on refresh token introspection when needed.
  • DSB is seeking feedback from the community on how the ecosystem can be configured rather than customised.
  • ACTION CBA undertook to consult with their IDP Team on whether the claim in question is being used and what proportion of ADRs immediately introspect to determine the expiry when a token is issued.

• #628 Addition of a DH-side endpoint for querying the status of a consent establishment flow

  • There are many issues associated to this change request, primarily stemming from Consumer Support.
  • More detailed discussion on this, to collect information about the scenarios affecting ADRs, has been taken offline.

• #631 Updates to 'Revoking consent' Standards

  • There was some discussion on this issue with DSB clarifying the intent is to align with the updated rules.
  • The DSB again requested participants to provide comment on:
    • any other reasons that should be considered as an exemption to sending a notification; and
    • whether this would have unintended consequences causing it to be a breaking change.

• #632 Concurrent consent support and cdr_arrangement_id

  • This new candidate is intended to be non-breaking because a CDR Arrangement ID is required for all existing and new consents, the purpose is to align documentation with the expected behaviour.
  • Participants to advise.

Admin

• #626 AuthorisationMetricsV2 abandonmentsByStage property descriptions and CDS Guide
  • This non-breaking change is intended to clarify current behaviour.
  • Participants to advise if there are any unintended consequences in the proposed change that would cause it to become a breaking change.

Energy

• #623 Add new pricing models to EnergyPlanContractV2

  • There was discussion on how this can apply where there's a residential and business tariff on the same account.
  • Current suggestion is to update description of pricingModel to clarify its based on usage charges only. If this is adopted, it would not be a breaking change
  • ACTION Participants to review the ticket and provide comment for further consideration.

• #624 Improved structure for Solar Time Varying Tariffs

  • AER/DEECA provided context for the need of this change.
  • Proposed solution would be a breaking change.

• #625 Additional field to support Step Tariff calculations

  • AER/DEECA provided context for the need of this change.
  • Proposed solution would be a breaking change.
  • ACTION DSB to outline proposed solution to help participant feedback.

• #627 EnergyPlanTariffPeriod - Change to daily supply charge

  • It was clarified that both options presented would be considered breaking as it would impact the ADRs
  • ACTION Participants noted Option 2 appears preferable but would review and provide further feedback

Other business

None

Next Steps

Community contribution to the issues is essential, please summarise your views and post on each issue for further discussion.