Add Age Verification to KnowYourCustomer SP's Scope in README

[ToshiWakayama-KDDI]

Problem description

• Current KnowYourCustomer Sub project's Scope in README does not include Age Verification API.

Expected action

• This issue is to propose content for Age Verification scope (fulfilling AI 12.01); It provides the API customer with the ability to: check if the owner/user of the line is older than a provided age, in order to provide API customer's age-restricted services, access to its age-restricted website etc.

[GillesInnov35]

hi @ToshiWakayama-KDDI, how could we link this issue with the interesting discussion started in issue https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomer/issues/46 and the code proposition in https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomer/pull/50 ?

thanks a lot BR Gilles

[GillesInnov35]

Concerning Age verification API, reading discussion in issue https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomer/issues/46, I understand that if we complete the enum (true/false/unverified/not_available/insufficient input data provided) we could validate a first proposal defined in PR in https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomer/pull/50. Is it right ?

[ToshiWakayama-KDDI]

Hi @GillesInnov35 ,

hi @ToshiWakayama-KDDI, how could we link this issue with the interesting discussion started in issue https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomer/issues/46 and the code proposition in https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomer/pull/50 ?

I do not know how to do that, but we could modify the text, so that it can be aligned with Issue #46/ PR #50. Why don' t we leave this issue for a while?

BR

[ToshiWakayama-KDDI]

Hi @GillesInnov35 ,

Thanks.

Concerning Age verification API, reading discussion in issue #46, I understand that if we complete the enum (true/false/unverified/not_available/insufficient input data provided) we could validate a first proposal defined in PR in #50. Is it right ?

Generally yes, but I have commented to Issue #46, as:

As we have had very long discussions, could you summerise the conclusion before moving on to PR? It is difficult to see what proposals are remaining, I feel.

A basic question, please. We have started Match Scoring discussion. As Age Verification has scoring feature, should it be aligned with Match Scoring?

Many thanks,

[GillesInnov35]

hi @ToshiWakayama-KDDI and all, I've tried to summarized the current discussion with all contributors in PR https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomer/pull/50 and issue https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomer/issues/46

• as the MNO hold only information of contract owner or contact, the identity of the user might be verified before the age verification
• Main rule: MNO will be able to return a result only if the user is the owner/contact of the contract known by the MNO
• MNO will return in the response a string result and a score level which is the aggregation of all match score result of the provided attributes
• Regarding the score result, MNO will decide what should be the age verification result (true/false/unverified/not_available)
• _insufficientdata has been removed of the initial proposition of enum
• by also returning the aggregated score it allows consumer application to decide how to understand the response.

The request contains

• age value to be verified
• attributes of the user's identity to be verified
• all additional attributes of identity are optional (seems to be the decision?)
• if not provided in the request, no identity verification will be performed (seems to be the decision?)

The response

• a string result (enum array) _true/false/unverified/notavailable
• _insufficientdata has been removed
• aggregated score match result of additional user's identity attributes if they are provided

What might be the next steps

• close issue #46 to centralize discussion into this new issue
• confirm decision
• review draft design in PR https://github.com/camaraproject/KnowYourCustomer/pull/50
• reduce or update the list of optional attributes of user's identity (if common decision is to keep an optional identity verification)
• review naming of attributes

What do you think about that ?

BR Gilles

[HuubAppelboom]

@GillesInnov35 @ToshiWakayama-KDDI Sounds like a good summary to me. Note that the score with age verification should indeed be the aggregate score, because you don't want to disclose the match on the individual attributes (for that we have the KYC Match api).