[Txauth] Use of word transaction request vs. transaction authorization request
Francis Pouatcha <fpo@adorsys.de> Thu, 11 June 2020 02:22 UTC
Return-Path: <fpo@adorsys.de>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419873A0D7A for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=adorsys.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3GJqfXpagiJa for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 965233A157D for <txauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id l10so4438358wrr.10 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adorsys.de; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1jYGqzGg48LEUaC9uNWjsUgwArGihx37MJPwD+0MOOA=; b=gcR8MsygT4QYMYWL+1X9UfrN2ZUSWxiwV/i+oxzD0HKjs6BkS4W56BJlHaMQmkwSxR BNjvZzInL7Zjyw2RgjT4RfxDAHkXpaD8PYFxjF2jlueiii9zcpxrN0ugGMVRGKDAOZMY EWZHoBJjuykgcSy7+UQgxNOxYQIYje0mUBDsM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1jYGqzGg48LEUaC9uNWjsUgwArGihx37MJPwD+0MOOA=; b=CxgXjJWBcxCF8YgirMz+w3r5PLH4pW/BZyJ1hdykkGsz9ZQOxazJfSLccK6ApVYJpd Oi64TrxGPh2f5l2ge03yV8wUVdxe9EACCWOs6Qu+W+5aEBJayoYwV9wsGaHx6DqXHcjA eYMtSXM7L4E3sgb1NlGIO/VB2dy/WtXDcOgPPvRdlbUDUCF/fKHI5L7l0Z6eKGpDB3K7 xAX5xztO0ywYE7q+vDozCn+O5WyP32PeMtp04NpmKQjpwoq/bCJBw5VFyA7F4A3q9pKl D1jnXG+ASApAyUcA88szExM8mjAqvq8DKl3QQX8AfNYcKZCNQX8A7dZhXJVWI3rhwz0I hbYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Ig0bT3g9cpYFtKyqrpbjyFTG+qQVNfvV0mPdl1sDcVIMoBHC0 1UORQhOkZn0m92Bj3ZXMgIJXO8Y6O3jgKNLG18RYvKzd
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPmKqX3ENnq4DhWcG3f5fN02smjXaE6zVGrHSK8qRTaUDuYF6shLLhkSi8MMomI1Zv55/OThpmf16A+T80ORE=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4bc5:: with SMTP id l5mr7008090wrt.104.1591842130788; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Francis Pouatcha <fpo@adorsys.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 22:21:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOW4vyPStciXEOM1oJ=15GC-F3SmvzQVkZmbz-TS6LWYNJzvZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: txauth@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000be98b405a7c5a0c0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/rPxg_sobbOHdD7Ot6Y9UugSBprg>
Subject: [Txauth] Use of word transaction request vs. transaction authorization request
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <txauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/txauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:txauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:22:14 -0000
I just read through the last version of txauth. There is a need to associate clear definition to following keyword to prevent confusion in productive systems: - <<transaction request>>: this shall be used to describe the call sent by the RC to the RS. The response of this call shall be the <<transaction response>>. - <<transaction authorization request>>: this shall be used to describe the call sent by the RC to the AS. The response of the call shall also be the <<transaction authorization response>>. The word transaction is currently used to designate this last call. -- Francis Pouatcha Co-Founder and Technical Lead at adorys https://adorsys-platform.de/solutions/
- [Txauth] Use of word transaction request vs. tran… Francis Pouatcha