DSB Maintenance Iteration 18: Minutes (21 February 2024)

Meeting Minutes

Release Plan

• v1.29.1 is a work in progress and will resolve the known issue in v1.29.0 where the incorrect version for Energy Billing APIs was published.
• The outcomes of MI18 will likely be published in v1.30.0.

Maintenance Iteration Review

Maintenance Iteration Review Outcomes have been synthesised which are available on this board. The DSB has considered this feedback and will provide a response in the next MI Meeting. A couple of the changes planned on the way we receive Change Requests and run Maintenance Iteration calls include:

• Updating the Change Request Template to include a section on 'Intention and Value of Change'; and
• Reordering the issues to be discussed to prioritise common and cross sectoral issues first so callers can drop off if there are no sector issues of interest.

Requirements Analysis

Common

• #610 Addition of an (18 or over) Age Verification Flag
  • Hoping to publish position in near future.

Errors

• #412 Proposal to change specific error codes from MUSTs to SHOULDs
  • May be withdrawn, ANZ to advise.

NFR

• #604 Arrangements with large numbers (500+) of accounts
  • Moved to backlog for NFR Consultative Group
• #618 Modification Request for Stages of Get Metrics v5 "abandonmentsByStage" Object
  • Guidance Published

Backlog Grooming Maintenance Iteration 18 Candidates

Two additional candidates were added to the list of candidates published in the minutes last week. NFR issues have been moved to the backlog to be addressed in the NFR Consultative Group which will commence on Thursday 22 February 2024.

MI 18

• #629 Maintenance Iteration 18 Holistic Feedback
  • Candidate

CX

• #468 Secondary user approvals withdrawal standards
  • Overlaps with Operational Enhancements Rules Consultation, on hold until outcomes are known.
  • Moved to backlog
• #577 Withdrawal of a SUI by an Account Holder leaving an "Empty" Authorisation
  • Candidate
• #633 Collection Consents - Authorisation Amendment
  • Standardising the need for ADRs to supply the CDR Arrangement ID
  • Agreed to include as an MI candidate

Security

• #628 Addition of a DH-side endpoint for querying the status of a consent establishment flow

  • Candidate
  • A summary of the discussion has been posted to the issue in this comment.
  • The DSB will reach out to ADRs to collect more information and compile scenarios where consumers get stuck.

• #631 Updates to 'Revoking consent' Standards

  • Agreed to include as an MI candidate.
  • Expected to be a non-breaking change.
  • Request for Participants to provide comment on:
    • any other reasons that should be considered as an exemption to sending a notification; and
    • whether this would have unintended consequences causing it to be a breaking change.

Admin

• #626 AuthorisationMetricsV2 abandonmentsByStage property descriptions and CDS Guide
  • Candidate
  • Proposed non-breaking change is summarised in this comment
  • Participants confirmed the updated description addresses the issue.

Energy

• #623 Add new pricing models to EnergyPlanContractV2
  • Candidate
  • Confusion around which pricing model to use when there's a mixture of single rate and time of use.
  • Clarification required in guidance or documentation to specify that the pricing model is based on the usage charges only.
  • Current pricing model structure may be suitable to address the scenarios noted in CR..
  • A summary of the discussion and proposed solutions available in this comment.
• #624 Improved structure for Solar Time Varying Tariffs
  • Candidate
  • Discussion on a proposed structure illustrated in the json file attached to this comment
  • Further elaboration on this structure, which is also shared with account detail endpoint, has been proposed in this comment.
  • Likely to be a breaking change.
• #625 Additional field to support Step Tariff calculations
  • Candidate
  • Making the new period field optional was discussed.
  • Retailers to consider this change and provide feedback.
• #627 EnergyPlanTariffPeriod - Change to daily supply charge
  • Candidate
  • The PRD data structure is replicated in plan and account details, so the proposed change will impact other endpoints and energy Data Holders.
  • Sharing the detail prescribed in the issue is predicated on the designated data holder's current ability to collect it. If they do not at this point, there is no obligation to share.
  • DSB welcomes input from Data Holder to assist in shaping the requirements.

Other business

None

Next Steps

Call out to the community to comment on the iteration candidates to reflect their contributions during the meeting. The DSB will analyse the requirements to commence development of a proposal for each issue.