You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
SEP-12 includes a PUT /customer/verification endpoint that is meant to accept verification of fields previously provided to PUT /customer, like mobile_number or email_address. However, the anchor platform doesn't support this endpoint, and it doesn't support accepting the mobile_number_verification or email_address_verification fields in PUT /customer requests.
What would you like to see?
Instead of supporting PUT /customer/verification, allow the anchor to accept *_verification fields in PUT /customer, where * is a valid SEP-9 field. This will allow anchors implement a 2-step process where they first accept the field that requires verification and then request the verification of that field.
What alternatives are there?
The alternative is to support the flow described in SEP-12, which is to set the field requiring verification to the VERIFICATION_REQUIRED status in GET /customer responses, and accept the verification with the PUT /customer/verification endpoint.
I don't think this is the best approach because we are trying to move away from using GET /customer as a means of determining which fields need to be provided to the anchor, in favor of the client polling the transaction record for which KYC may be required instead.
What problem does your feature solve?
SEP-12 includes a
PUT /customer/verification
endpoint that is meant to accept verification of fields previously provided toPUT /customer
, likemobile_number
oremail_address
. However, the anchor platform doesn't support this endpoint, and it doesn't support accepting themobile_number_verification
oremail_address_verification
fields inPUT /customer
requests.What would you like to see?
Instead of supporting
PUT /customer/verification
, allow the anchor to accept*_verification
fields inPUT /customer
, where*
is a valid SEP-9 field. This will allow anchors implement a 2-step process where they first accept the field that requires verification and then request the verification of that field.What alternatives are there?
The alternative is to support the flow described in SEP-12, which is to set the field requiring verification to the
VERIFICATION_REQUIRED
status inGET /customer
responses, and accept the verification with thePUT /customer/verification
endpoint.I don't think this is the best approach because we are trying to move away from using
GET /customer
as a means of determining which fields need to be provided to the anchor, in favor of the client polling the transaction record for which KYC may be required instead.cc @Ifropc
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: