According to the FSPIOP-API Spec for transaction requests, the payer DFSP send a PUT /transactionRequest/{id} request to the Payee DFSP before issuing a quote.
In our current PISP designs, we don't have this request, but instead rely soley on the POST /authorization to proceed, or PUT /thirdpartyRequests/transaction/{id}/error to fail the thirdparty transaction.
Question: Do we need to have a PUT /thirdpartyRequests/transaction/{id} from the PayerDFSP -> PISP ?
For sake of consistency between the api patterns, I think we should, but I'm very open to other thoughts.
According to the FSPIOP-API Spec for transaction requests, the payer DFSP send a
PUT /transactionRequest/{id}
request to the Payee DFSP before issuing a quote.Ref: 641-service-details
In our current PISP designs, we don't have this request, but instead rely soley on the
POST /authorization
to proceed, orPUT /thirdpartyRequests/transaction/{id}/error
to fail the thirdparty transaction.Question: Do we need to have a
PUT /thirdpartyRequests/transaction/{id}
from the PayerDFSP -> PISP ?For sake of consistency between the api patterns, I think we should, but I'm very open to other thoughts.