-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 379
docs: clarify network token usage and PCI scope in card credentials #367
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
jamesandersen
wants to merge
4
commits into
Universal-Commerce-Protocol:main
Choose a base branch
from
jamesandersen:docs/network-token-usage
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+50
−1
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
bdef773
docs: clarify network token usage and PCI scope in card credentials
jamesandersen b299bf0
docs: replace PCI scope assertions with references to PCI DSS guidance
jamesandersen ab9db85
docs: generalize network token section per review feedback
jamesandersen 016d00f
docs: make card_credential description DPAN/CPAN agnostic
jamesandersen File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ Kroger | |
| Lowe's | ||
| Macy's | ||
| Mastercard | ||
| MDES | ||
| Paymentech | ||
| Paypal | ||
| Preorders | ||
|
|
||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is also a flow where this obj, even when DPAN / CPAN, could still be wrapped in a payment_handler wrapper. It wouldn't require a de-tokenization call to an out of band API, but would make the object opaque to any intermediate parties.
Can you update the language to be open to that setup as well? I would expect the object definition of the card credential would specify what the object contains.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Aligned and truthfully I think thats what would fit the current state of UCP!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep - language is updated to note a payment handler is needed for negotiation. This should leave the door open for handlers that also that wrap credentials for intermediary opacity.
I'm interested to discuss/learn more about pros/cons of wrapping vs. directly passing network tokens (which the schema seems to allow on a complete checkout call) BUT also interested in getting this PR over the finish line before diving into that further ;-)