PARTNER-146: Add external_account_id to SEP-9

[Ifropc]

No description provided.

[JakeUrban]

What is the difference between the id sent in SEP-12 requests vs. the external_account_id parameter? They seem like the same thing to me.

[CassioMG]

What is the difference between the id sent in SEP-12 requests vs. the external_account_id parameter? They seem like the same thing to me.

Very good point. I guess it would depend on how the partner is planning on handling things on their side, but yes I believe they could potentially be the same thing as Sep-12's id field refers to the account id on the Anchor(partner) side.

[Ifropc]

What is the difference between the id sent in SEP-12 requests vs. the external_account_id parameter? They seem like the same thing to me.

Ideally, it should be the same (I don't see why they should be different, actually). This field is to be used in other SEPs that may not use SEP-12, to pass the customer's ID along the KYC (mainly, it's for SEP-24)
Do you think that it makes sense to just add it there instead?

[JakeUrban]

I think so. Adding something like customer_id to the SEP-24 (and SEP-6) transaction initiation endpoint, noting that this field should match the value returned from the anchor's SEP-12 PUT /customer response, seems to make sense.

[JakeUrban]

This matches SEP-31's design of having sender_id and receiver_id fields in its transaction initiation request.

[Ifropc]

@JakeUrban do you think we need to add customer_id to SEP-6, considering client first calls SEP-12 in the flow?

[JakeUrban]

I think adding the customer_id parameter to SEP-6 actually makes sense in that case, where the client already knows the customer ID. We're changing the SEP-6 flow to also allow clients to initiate transactions before passing KYC though, so in that case the parameter wouldn't make sense. But if we make it optional, I don't see a problem with adding it.

[Ifropc]

I think it actually makes sense to pass customer_id before KYC.
If it's passed after, the business should already have tied JWT to their internal account.
However, if it's done before, business can do the assignment of Stellar account to the internal account at this step.

[JakeUrban]

Ah you're right. The customer_id attribute only needs to be passed if

• the customer exists in the anchor's records
• the client somehow knows the ID
• the anchor doesn't know the customer's stellar account
  • and therefore wasn't registered via SEP-12 yet, if they need to be at all

[JakeUrban]

I don't quite understand the definition.

ID of an account associated with this user (identified by JWT) used by the anchor.

Is the account supposed to be some kind of off-chain record, like a github account? Or are you referring to a Stellar account here?

When you say (identified by JWT), are you referring to the user or their account mentioned above?

Unrelatedly, lets make sure we're being consistent with how we use "id" vs. "IDand remove the capital C inCustomer's`.

[Ifropc]

Is the account supposed to be some kind of off-chain record, like a github account

Yes, off-chain account (internal anchor's account)

When you say (identified by JWT), are you referring to the user or their account mentioned above?

Account + memo combination

I will rephrase description so it's more clear

[JakeUrban]

LGTM with the grammar edits made in my comment.

[CassioMG]

Lgtm