After some discussion with Adrian HB and Nick it would seem that the tokens returned in my demo are called token-pans, aka tpans, and are technically supported by the EMVco spec alongside network tokens. Tpans (like in my demo) can have a dynamic CVV rather than a cryptogram and while tpans can masquerade as basic cards, they offer additional benefits like scoping and being outside of PCI. However, our spec currently makes cryptogram a required field and thus makes tpans not 'tokenized-cards'.
Is it our intent to preclude tpans from tokenized-card or should there be changes to support this use case as distinct from basic-card?
After some discussion with Adrian HB and Nick it would seem that the tokens returned in my demo are called token-pans, aka tpans, and are technically supported by the EMVco spec alongside network tokens. Tpans (like in my demo) can have a dynamic CVV rather than a cryptogram and while tpans can masquerade as basic cards, they offer additional benefits like scoping and being outside of PCI. However, our spec currently makes cryptogram a required field and thus makes tpans not 'tokenized-cards'.
Is it our intent to preclude tpans from tokenized-card or should there be changes to support this use case as distinct from basic-card?