Type @<name> to tag attendance
Type @<name> to tag attendance
Type @<name> to tag attendance
OTP-Validation
SIM Swap
Number Verification
OTP - Validation
Release r2.3 done: Release r2.3 · camaraproject/OTPValidation
one-time-password-sms 1.1.0
see release note for detail - mostly commonalities alignement.
We need to provide stable test statement
Sim Swap
Release 2.2 done: Prepare r2.2 by fernandopradocabrillo · Pull Request #193 · camaraproject/SimSwap
sim-swap 2.0.0
Add management of monitoredPeriod in sim swap for retrieve-date operation
Add 400 OUT_OF_RANGE error when the maxAge is above 2400
Commonalities alignement
sim-swap-subscriptions 0.2
Add TerminationReason SUBSCRIPTION_DELETED
Commonalities alignement
We need to provide stable test statement for sim-swap 2.0
Issue 190: What to do when local regulation regulations prevents 100 days maxAge in check operation?
Using a message could be just good enough without changing the interface - additional opinion?
issue 194: 403 SUBSCRIPTION_MISMATCH cannot be returned
This is useful when we have a mismatch between the eventType passed in the /autorize from the evenType used in the body of the sim swap subscription
But here as we have only one eventType this useless.
Just to be sure there is no certification test…. (TBC with Toyeeb Rehman )
Number Verification
New release r2.4 and invalidation of release r2.3 (issues 177 & 165)
Until now the API could only be used with AuthCode + network auth. With the definition of the login_hint operatortoken in the latest ICM release, it is proposed to extend the defined auth flows and allow the use of CIBA+OT.
The proposal would be to invalidate and remove the newly created release r2.3 (v1.1.0) and create a new release r2.4 (v2.0.0).
The functionality of the new v2.0.0 release will not be modified so as not to break compatibility with the previous v1.0.0 release, the only changes the new release will contain will be in the API description to reflect the use of CIBA+OT. However, the inclusion of a new authentication method is enough to generate a new major version of the API.
Main PR to manage this move is #174
Any significant blocking point for discussion?
Issue 171 - A new issue to be created to discuss specifically on 422 → Issue #178
Not sure if we have something to do !
We need to provide stable test statement