DBA 2nd iteration Solution Architecture
Introduction
Approach: we follow the SA as was done for Intermediation (1st iteration).
Working on thr SA I realize that the SA for iteration 1 might need an update as well... TBC
Scope and focus
- Within scope
- Modify DO/DE Mocks for S&N en Lookup patterns
- Common component voor Cross-border subscriptions (optional for MS to use, i.e. not mandatory)
- Event Notification + Evidence Lookup flavour, in line with PSA 2nd iteration
- Outside scope
- Resend a subscription request in case of an error (instead the possibility to inspect the logs and manually resend a request is deemed sufficient (MVP))
- Include the Evidence in the notification (instead pure notification + lookup)
- Attribute Lookup
DE4A preconditions
Design choices
Describe what WON'T be implemented for the pilot as well as design choices (see also scope section)
eIDAS and OOP TS
DBA eIDAS solution
This section contains the eIDAS solution architecture for the DBA pilot. The second pilot iteration adds fine grained powers validation to eIDAS and will be used in conjunction with the intermediation pattern. While the first iteration solution architecture supports full powers only, the second iteration allows for explicit expression of powers in a powers validation request and powers declaration. This requires extension of eIDAS.
General design choices
The DBA eIDAS architecture has been designed with the following general design decisions:
- The DBA pilot will implement a pilot-eIDAS-network, meaning the Member States will implement dedicated pilot eIDAS nodes for cross-border authentication and powers validation that is isolated from the regular network of eIDAS nodes. As the project extends on the use of eIDAS with legal person attributes and powers validation, regular eIDAS nodes are not suitable for piloting. Furthermore, use of the dedicated eIDAS network allows for acceptance of non-notified eID for piloting only.
- The DBA pilot uses the eIDAS company identification attributes ('legal person attributes in eIDAS') to communicate the represented legal person to the DP. As most Member States do not provide these attributes currently, they need to be added for piloting.
- The DBA pilot will use eIDAS attribute profile 1.1 and/or CEF’s reference software for the eIDAS node version 2.4.
- The DBA pilot will use the SEMPER extension that is compatible with the eIDAS node 2.4 for fine-grained powers validation in the second pilot iteration.
Compared to current eIDAS practice, the use of eIDAS will be extended by the DBA pilot with:
- Requesting and sending legal person attributes (identifying the company that applies for the service). Although eIDAS has been able to send legal person attributes from the start, this functionality has been notified just twice (by IT and NL) and has not been used in production services.
- Validating powers of representation. This function is not part of the eIDAS network currently.
Ad 1. Legal Person attributes & record matching at the DC
Ad 2. Powers validation
Pilot iteration 1 supports implicit full powers only. It uses the eIDAS network currently operational for sending the required information. The eIDAS infrastructure – from the start – supported exchange of natural person attributes as well as company identification attributes (‘legal person attributes’). The eIDAS regulation defined the minimum datasets for both the natural and the legal person. The information on the company in eIDAS has been limited to attributes identifying the company. The eIDAS network lacks a possibility to specify the powers to validate though. Attributes specifying the powers (‘the powers declaration’) have not been defined yet. Implementing this option will require consensus on an additional processing rule: “In case of full powers, the eIDAS authentication will be successful and the data provider sends the eIDAS legal person attributes as well. In case of insufficient powers, the authentication must fail.”. Only that way the data consumer knows whether the user has full powers. By the lack of an explicit powers declaration, this option does not support fine-grained powers validation.
Pilot iteration 2 supports fine grained powers validation. By using the SEMPER extension on eIDAS, not only the natural and company identification attributes can be exchanged, an explicit powers declaration will be included as well. Using the extension, the data consumer additionally specifies the scope of the service the user needs powers for. After validating the powers, the data provider constructs a powers declaration confirming or denying the person’s powers. The extension allows for full powers validation as well as fine-grained validation. Furthermore, the extension adds attributes for specifying the powers, like the source of powers and one or more limitation to the use of the power.
Main design decisions regarding fine grained powers validation:
- the DBA pilot allows for representation of legal persons by natural persons only.
- the DBA pilot does not allow for intermediary parties (e.g. accounting firm operation on behalf of the company).
- the DBA pilot will operate a list of harmonised services to express the extent of powers. Non-harmonised services will not be supported.
- the DBA pilot will use the SDG annex II procedures as starting point for the list of harmonised services.
- the DBA pilot will implement fine grained powers using the SEMPER extension to eIDAS or implement the SEMPER concepts in custom eIDAS software.
For more information, please refer to the DBA internal discussion paper on Powers validation.
Component overview
Process realisation
The table below presents the components that implement the application services for the DBA pilot.
| Process | Application service | Components |
| Request authentication, including powers validation | Authentication initiation | - Specific eIDAS connector
- eIDAS connector - SEMPER extension |
| Authenticate user | User authentication | - Identity Provider |
| Validate powers of representation | User authentication | - Mandate Management System |
| Retrieve legal person attributes (optional) | User authentication | - Legal Person attribute provider |
| Provide authentication details, including powers declaration | User authentication | - Specific eIDAS proxy
- eIDAS proxy - SEMPER extension |
Component description
The SEMPER extension is the common component that the Member States need to deploy on their national eIDAS nodes. Instead of operating the SEMPER (reference) module, a custom extension that complies with the SEMPER specifications may be developed by the individual Member States as well.
| Component | Short description of its use |
| SEMPER extension | Common component (local deployment)
Component for extending the eIDAS connector and the eIDAS proxy to allow for explicit powers validation requests and powers declarations. This component has been developed by the SEMPER project and needs to be deployed on the eIDAS node of each of the Member States. |
| Mandate Management System | Member State Specific
Member State specific solutions for registration and validation of powers. The Mandate Management Systems need to be connected to the national nodes for validating powers (if not connected already for validating full powers in the first iteration) |
| Specific eIDAS connector | Member State Specific
The Member State specific component that translates national eID protocol into eIDAS (light) protocol for requesting authentication and powers validation. To enable fine grained powers validation, the specific eIDAS connector needs to be extended for requesting powers validation alongside authentication. |
| Specific eIDAS proxy | Member State Specific
The Member State specific component that translates national eID protocol into eIDAS (light) protocol for performing authentication and powers validation. The Specific eIDAS proxy needs to be adapted to translate the powers validation request (the scope of powers to be precise) to national powers taxonomy, send a powers validation request to the MMS in national protocol, receive and interpret the response from the MMS and translate it back to cross-border taxonomy. |
Requirements
Describe the requirements for application services.
Component Implementation
eIDAS node 2.4 + SEMPER extension
or allow
eIDAS node 2.5? No compatible SEMPER extension available (check with TUG).
Proposal for the harmonised services to express powers cross-border:
| Catalogue | Nr | Harmonised service |
|---|---|---|
| SDGR | 1 | Notification of business activity, permission for exercising a business activity, changes of business activity and the termination of a business activity not involving insolvency or liquidation procedures |
| SDGR | 2 | Registration of an employer (a natural person) with compulsory pension and insurance schemes |
| SDGR | 3 | Registration of employees with compulsory pension and insurance schemes |
| SDGR | 4 | Submitting a corporate tax declaration |
| SDGR | 5 | Notification to the social security schemes of the end of contract with an employee, excluding procedures for the collective termination of employee contracts |
| SDGR | 6 | Payment of social contributions for employees |
| SDGR+ | 1 | Starting of a company or opening as branch |
| SDGR+ | 2 | Initial registration of a business activity with the business register |
Expected logical interfaces
The request will be a combination of a regular eIDAS request (not new) and a powers validation request (new).
regular eIDAS request & response
- eIDAS attributes to request: legal person attributes only (at least the mandatory ones)
- eIDAS attributes to respond with:legal person attributes (at least the mandatory ones) and representative natural person attributes (at least he mandatory ones) using the representative-prefix
powers validation
- request:
- scope of powers to validate
- type of representation allowed
- source of powers accepted
- response:
- validation result (successful or not)
- type of representation
- source of powers
Details specified by the SEMPER project in deliverable M3.
DBA OOP TS solution
Maybe this is the place to insert explanation of the subscription application collaboration (and notification?), i.e. front-end/back-end w.r.t. notifications.
The shared solution for the OOP TS consists of all common functionality of the OOP technical system. Most of the common OOP TS components need to be implemented by the data requestor and data transferor, although the OOP TS uses central components as well.
Image might need an update, i.e. depict S&N and LKP shared stuff
The OOP TS domain (WP5) provide the data requestor and data transferor with the components needed for
- cross-border subscription and notification messages
- performing the lookup of an evidence
In the MVP the DBA pilot uses one type of subscription message and one type on notification message that all DC’s and DP’s involved will use. The subscription message is for subscribing to cross-border events generated at the DP. The notification message is for notifying the DC of such events. If the DC desires the Evidence can be retrieved using the Lookup. This implies an update of the IEM (WP3). There will be just one data provider per Member state: the business register, where the subscription will be recored and where the cross border events are generated, i.e.is the authentic source of company information. The DC will subscribe in one Member State at a time. The DP will notify one Member State at the time. The explicit request and the preview functions won't be needed, in both interaction patterns there is no user involvement.
Process realisation
The table below presents the components that implement the application services for the DBA pilot. The process realization is dealt with per pattern with S&N split in two as they are independently triggered.
Subscription
| Process | Application Service | Components |
| Initiate subscription (DC) | Subscription Initiation | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Change subscription (DC) | Subscription Initiation | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Lookup event provider routing information (DC) | Inquire Routing Information | Data Service Lookup |
| Send subscription request (DC) |
|
|
| Validate subscription request (DP) |
|
|
| Evaluate subscription request (DP) | Subscription Evaluation | Subscription System |
| Exception: Prepare subscription error message (DP) | Subscription Error Handling | Subscription System |
| Exception Send subscription error message (DP) |
|
|
| Exception: Forward subscription error (DC) | n/a | |
| Exception: Investigate reason for subscription error (DC) | n/a | |
| Register subscription (DP) | Subscription Creation and Update | Subscription System |
| Confirm subscription (DP) | Subscription Confirmation | Subscription System |
| Send subscription confirmation (DP) |
|
|
| Forward confirmation (DC) | n/a | |
| Log subscription information (DC) | n/a |
Registering the subscription at DP and logging subscription at DC is similar in functionality but mirrored. This could be common component (reference implementation) or at least a specification. This component would be optional for MS to use.
Notification
| Process | Application Service | Components |
| Identify event (DP) | Cross-border Event Filter | Cross-border Event Handler |
| Check subscriptions (DP) | Subscription Lookup | Subscription System |
| Prepare notification message and subscriber list (DP) | Notification Message and Subscriber List Preparation | Cross-border Event Handler |
| Exception: Resend past events (DP) | Manual Event Dispatch | Notification Front-end |
| Resolve service metadata (DP) | Inquire Routing Information | Data Service Lookup |
| Exception: Resolve subscriber participant ID and inform National Contact Point (DP) | Subscription Mismatch Log | Notification Front-end |
| Send event notification (DP) |
|
|
| Validate event notification (DC) |
|
|
| Determine event response (DC) | Event Evaluation | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Request change of subscription (DC) |
|
eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Dismiss event (DC) | Update Notification Response Log | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Trigger evidence lookup (DC) | Update Notification Response Log | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Notify Responsible Organization (DC) | Update Notification Response Log | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
Lookup
Note: compared with Intermediation the user is absent.
| Process | Application Service | Component |
| Determine required cross-border evidence (DC) | Cross-border Evidence Matching | Evidence Type Translator |
| Lookup routing information (DC) | Inquire Routing Information | Data Service Lookup |
| Request evidence (DC) |
|
|
| Evaluate evidence request (DP) |
|
|
| Establish subject identity (DP) | Identity/Record Matching | Record Matching
(needed for company matching right?) |
| Communicate non-availability of OOP (DP) |
|
|
| Extract evidence (DP) | Evidence Lookup | Evidence Query |
| Communicate non-availability or Delay of evidence (DP) |
|
|
| Establish non-availability of OOP (DC) | Evidence Request Tracker | Evidence Interchange Back-end |
| Compose evidence response (DP) | Domestic to Cannonical Evidence Transformation | Evidence Portal Back-end |
| Transfer evidence (DP) |
|
|
| Forward evidence (DC) |
|
|
| Evaluate evidence (DC) | Requirements/Evidence Matching | eProcedure Rules Engine |
<<insert updated diagram>>
Do we stick with the ESL config file or will IDK implement something?
There might be a common components @DO and @DE for S&N TBC
Component description
The following table lists the shared components indicated light blue in the image above.
| Component | Short description of its use |
| Evidence service locator (ESL) configuration file Issuing Authority Locator (IAL) TBC | Change w.r.t. iteration1? There is no evidence lookup, instead the endpoint where to send the subscription request to is needed. ALso there is no evidence response, it is event oriented now.
As the DBA pilot’s MVP uses just one type subscription message with just one data provider per Member state (on NUTS0 level), there is no need for dynamic discovery of the data provider. For the DBA pilot it is sufficient to use a simple configuration file with the required elements (member state and participant id) like in iteration 1. |
| SMP | For each subscription request/response, information on the receivers Access Point (URL) and its certificates are needed. Each member state hosts an SMP for this purpose. Before sending a request or response, the sending party queries the SMP of the receiver to get this info. |
| DNS & SML | As there are multiple SMP’s, the sending party needs to know where to find the SMP of the receiver to get the actual metadata. This location can be found in the centrally CEF-hosted DNS, that will be queried by the access point of the sending member state.
DNS entries will be created from the registration of SMP’s: the SML, which is also centrally hosted by CEF. |
| eDelivery AS4 gateway | This component – also referred to as eDelivery access point – handles the secure transfer of the data, including encryption and decryption as well as signing/sealing and validating signatures/seals. |
Requirements
TODO
Component implementation
DNS, SML will be reused from iteration 1.
The Evidence service locator (ESL) configuration file probably needs to change. TBC
SMP, eDelivery AS4 gateway will be reused from iteration 1.
The DE4A Connector needs an update.
| Component | Expected interface |
| Evidence service locator (ESL) configuration file Issuing Authority Locator (IAL) TBC | IN (from DE4A connector to ESL configuration file):
- Member state - ... more? OUT from ESL configuration file to DE4A connector): - participant ID |
| SMP | IN (from DE4A connector to SMP):
- Participant ID OUT (from SMP to DE4A connector): - Service URL - Certificate to use |
| DNS & SML | IN (from DE4A connector to DNS):
- Member state - Participant ID OUT (from DNS to DE4A connector): - SMP location |
| eDelivery AS4 gateway | IN (from DE4A connector to eDelivery AS4 gateway):
- evidence request OUT (from eDelivery AS4 gateway to DE4A connector): - Evidence response |
| DE4A Connector | IN (from data evaluator to DE4A connector):
- Data evaluator - Data evaluating Member state - Subscription Request - Data providing Member state OUT (from DE4A connector to data evaluator): - Data providing member state - Data provider - Subscription Response |
Expected logical interfaces
The expected logical interfaces are expected to remain largely the same.
We need to discuss with WP5 the implementation of the Data Service Lookup ABB. Right now this is covered by two SBBs ESL and IAL. However, for S&N there is no evidencen lookup or exchange, so at lest the name is off. Also the I/F with the Connector changes slightly. In the table above some differences are indicated.
DC-specific solution
The DC specific solution is different for every DC and the solution architecture will be specified in the design document of the pilot processes (one for each data consumer). Nonetheless the DC-specific solution at a higher level of abstraction show similarities.
Process realization
Subscription
| Process | Application Service | Components |
| Initiate subscription | Subscription Initiation | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Change subscription | Subscription Initiation | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Lookup event provider routing information | Inquire Routing Information | Data Service Lookup |
| Send subscription request |
|
|
| Exception: Forward subscription error | n/a | |
| Exception: Investigate reason for subscription error | n/a | |
| Forward confirmation | n/a | |
| Log subscription information | n/a | could be acommon component |
Notification
| Process | Application Service | Components |
| Validate event notification |
|
|
| Determine event response | Event Evaluation | eProcedure Back-office Backend
another candidate for reuse TBC |
| Request change of subscription |
|
eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Dismiss event | Update Notification Response Log | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Trigger evidence lookup | Update Notification Response Log | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
| Notify Responsible Organization | Update Notification Response Log | eProcedure Back-office Backend |
Lookup
| Process | Application Service | Component |
| Determine required cross-border evidence | Cross-border Evidence Matching | Evidence Type Translator |
| Lookup routing information | Inquire Routing Information | Data Service Lookup |
| Request evidence |
|
|
| Establish non-availability of OOP | Evidence Request Tracker | Evidence Interchange Back-end |
| Forward evidence |
|
|
| Evaluate evidence | Requirements/Evidence Matching | eProcedure Rules Engine |
<<insert updated diagram>>
Component description
Additional components may be possible on DC side TBD
Also, it is likely not be be handled by the eProcedure portal but from the back office.
| Component | Short description of its use |
| eProcedure portal | The eProcedure portal should be adapted to support the use of the cross-border evidence in the process. For that purpose it should facilitate the user in the OOP-process and connect to the OOP TS. Connection to the OOP TS is typically implemented via a Portal-to-OOP TS-interface that may utilise national OOP-protocols and infrastructure. |
| eProcedure backend | The eProcedure backend handles all eProcedure specific logic. For the DBA pilot this backend functionality basically remains unchanged. One addition to the backend may be the record matching on the company (for companies registered prior to the pilot). |
| Portal to OOP TS interface | Member states may (but do not need to) implement an interface from national OOP protocols to the DE4A data model (DE4A connector). Such an interface guarantees that the data evaluator can use the same (national) OOP protocols and services for cross-border use as well. |
Requirements
TODO
Component implementation
This section is fully DC-specific.
Expected logical interfaces
This section is fully DC-specific.
DP-specific solution
The DP specific solution is different for every DP. The DP specific solution architecture will be specified in the design document of the pilot processes (one for each data consumer). Nonetheless the DP-specific solution at a higher level of abstraction show similarities.
The DP specific architecture consists of the owner and transferor specific services. The transferor specific services are typically implemented at Member state level.
Process realisation
Subscription
| Process | Application Service | Components |
| Validate subscription request |
|
|
| Evaluate subscription request | Subscription Evaluation | Subscription System |
| Exception: Prepare subscription error message | Subscription Error Handling | Subscription System |
| Exception Send subscription error message |
|
|
| Register subscription | Subscription Creation and Update | Subscription System |
| Confirm subscription | Subscription Confirmation | Subscription System |
| Send subscription confirmation |
|
|
Notification
| Process | Application Service | Components |
| Identify event | Cross-border Event Filter | Cross-border Event Handler |
| Check subscriptions | Subscription Lookup | Subscription System |
| Prepare notification message and subscriber list | Notification Message and Subscriber List Preparation | Cross-border Event Handler |
| Exception: Resend past events | Manual Event Dispatch | Notification Front-end |
| Resolve service metadata | Inquire Routing Information | Data Service Lookup |
| Exception: Resolve subscriber participant ID and inform National Contact Point | Subscription Mismatch Log | Notification Front-end |
| Send event notification |
|
|
Lookup
| Process | Application Service | Component |
| Evaluate evidence request |
|
|
| Establish subject identity | Identity/Record Matching | Record Matching
(needed for company matching right?) |
| Communicate non-availability of OOP |
|
|
| Extract evidence | Evidence Lookup | Evidence Query |
| Communicate non-availability or Delay of evidence |
|
|
| Compose evidence response | Domestic to Cannonical Evidence Transformation | Evidence Portal Back-end |
| Transfer evidence |
|
|
<<insert updated diagram>>
Component description
| Component | Short description of its use |
| Data service | The webservice of the data provider that will output the evidence requested. |
| Portal to OOP TS interface | Member states may (but do not need to) implement an interface from national OOP protocols to the DE4A data model (DE4A connector). |
Requirements
TODO
Component implementation
This section is fully DP-specific.
Expected logical interfaces
This section is fully DP-specific.
Appendix: archimate component diagrams
DBA eIDAS solution architecture
OOP TS solution architecture
TODO merge AC's and tailot to MVP.