DBA 2nd iteration Solution Architecture
pilot iteration 2
The 2nd pilot iteration for DBA consists of:
- extending use of the intermediation pattern for evidence exchange to allow for more fine grained powers validation (intermediation patter remains unchanged, SEMPER will be added)
- the subscription and notification pattern
- the Lookup pattern (the lookup of evidence, not individual attributes).
The solution architecture of (1) has been specified in chapter Solution architecture for DBA authentication and powers validation and the solution architecture for (2) and (3) have been included in chapter Subscription & Notification and Lookup patterns.
Introduction
Approach: we follow the SA as was done for Intermediation (1st iteration).
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
Usage of eDelivery for both S&N and LKP patterns.
Design choices
Describe what WON'T be implemented for the pilot as well as design choices (see also scope section)
eIDAS and OOP TS
Solution architecture for DBA authentication and powers validation
This section contains the eIDAS solution architecture for the DBA pilot. eIDAS will be used for piloting the intermediation pattern in DBA pilot iteration 1 and 2.
In all DBA casus a natural person will represent a company in the cross-border eProcedure. In both iterations the powers of the representative will be validates. The granularity is different in both iterations though. In the first iteration only full powers will be validated. The pilot partners will use currently available eIDAS for this purpose. The second pilot iteration adds fine grained powers validation to eIDAS. It allows for explicit expression of powers in a powers validation request and powers declaration. This requires extension of eIDAS with the SEMPER concepts and software.
General design choices
The DBA eIDAS architecture has been designed with the following general design decisions (see DBA deliverable D4.6):
- 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
- The pilot partners will send the mandatory eIDAS attributes for the legal person after successful authenticating and validating powers (LegalPersonIdentifier and LegalName).
- The Data evaluator in the DBA pilot needs record matching on the company to determine whether the company has been registered at the company portal prior to the pilot start (without eIDASLegalpersonIdentifier). The DBA data evaluator will use the second mandatory eIDAS attribute (LegalName) for that purpose. If needed the Data evaluator interacts with the user to do additional checks in the matching process. Record matching at the data evaluator is an eProcedure portal (or data consumer) specific activity that does not need harmonisation across piloting partners.
- The data owner does not need to do record matching on the company as it can use the eIDASLegalIdentifier to uniquely identify the company involved. This is a consequence of the pilot principle, that the authenticating proxy sends an eIDASLegalPersonidentifier that the business register itself uses in its company registration.
- Data evaluators and data owners do not need to do record matching on the natural person. Therefore, no additional eIDAS attributes of the natural person are needed.
For more information, please see, please see DE4A D4.6 DBA Pilot Planning v1.0 final.pdf
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 DE4A D4.6 DBA Pilot Planning v1.0 final.pdf
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 | - eProcedure portal
- 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 | User authentication | - Legal Person attribute provider (may be same as Mandate Management System) |
| 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 | Changes for 2nd iteration piloting |
| 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. |
Needs to be deployed by Member States for communicating fine grained powers.
This component has been developed by the SEMPER project and needs to be deployed on the eIDAS node of each of the Member States. As an alternative Member States May develop a custom implementation of the SEMPER software that complies with the SEMPER SAML interface specifications. |
| Identity Provider | The Identity Provider handles authentication of the natural person. The IdP may be notified under eIDAS, but does not need to be notified to be used in the DBA pilot. | No changes in 2nd pilot iteration. |
| Legal Person AP | Member States need to provide the identifying (mandatory) attributes of the legal person (eIDASLegalPersonID and eIDASLegalName) to the specific eIDAS proxy. Member States could provide optional attributes of the legal person. The Legal Person attributes may be integrated in the national eID scheme. For example, in eRecognition (NL) the mandate management system also provides the legal person attributes. MMS and Legal Person AP are one and the same component then. | No changes in 2nd pilot iteration. |
| Mandate Management System | Member State Specific
Member State specific solutions for registration and validation of powers. In the DBA first iteration MVP, this source must be used to verify full powers only. In the MVP the declaration of powers that results from validating full powers is implicit: in case the authentication is successful, the user will have full powers to represent the company. In the second iteration MVP, when using SEMPER, the powers declaration is explicit: the powers declaration relates to the requested powers declaration and can be a powers declaration for a specific eService as well as a (explicit) powers declaration for full powers. |
Optionally (depending on national implementation) the harmonised services need to be included in the MMS. |
| 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. Member States usually implement one or more components to ‘bridge’ eIDAS to the national eID infrastructure. As from CEF eIDAS reference software 2.0, Member States use the eIDAS Light protocol for this. |
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. Member States usually implement one or more components to ‘bridge’ eIDAS to the national eID infrastructure. As from CEF eIDAS reference software 2.0, Member States use the eIDAS Light protocol for this. Furthermore, the eIDAS proxy coordinates the login process at the DP Member State by triggering the IdP, Legal Person AP and MMS. |
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. |
| eProcedure portal | DC specific
The eProcedure portal handles all user interaction on the web. It connects to the national eIDAS node via the specific eIDAS connector. This requires the eProcedure portal to add the eIDAS login option to the login-webpage and interface to the specific eIDAS connector. As the DBA Pilot will use a dedicated network of eIDAS nodes, the eIDAS login option should be separated from the regular eIDAS login option (in case not already available on the eProcedure portal). The DBA login option should invoke the dedicated eIDAS connector instead of the regular one (a different URL). |
In iteration 1 the eProcedure portal should request:
In iteration 1 the eProcedure portal should:
In iteration 2 the eProcedure portal should request:
In iteration 2 the eProcedure portal should:
|
| eIDAS connector | Common component (local deployment)
The component Member States implement to connect to the eIDAS network as a relying party. The connector accepts authentication requests from the service providers of the Member State and forwards the requests to the Member States that needs to authenticate the user. After authentication, the eIDAS connector receives the authentication results and sends them to the requesting service provider (relying party). The eIDAS connector can be implemented using CEF’s reference software or a custom implementation compliant to the eIDAS interoperability specifications. The CEF reference software implements – besides the eIDAS SAML profile – also the JSON/REST eIDAS Light protocol to connect to national infrastructure. |
No changes in 2nd pilot iteration. |
| eIDAS proxy | Common component (local deployment)
The component Member States implement to allow authentication with their (notified) eID for services provided in other Member States. The eIDAS proxy receives authentication requests from relying Member States, coordinates authentication, retrieval of legal person attributes and powers validation. The eIDAS proxy then sends the result to the requesting eIDAS connector. Just like the eIDAS connector, the eIDAS proxy can be implemented using CEF’s reference software or a custom implementation compliant to the eIDAS interoperability specifications. The CEF reference software implements – besides the eIDAS SAML profile – also the JSON/REST eIDAS Light protocol to connect to national infrastructure. |
No changes in 2nd pilot iteration. |
Requirements
The table below presents the requirements that the data evaluator and the authentication connector must implement.
| Role | requirement |
Use in pilot iteration 1 |
use in pilot iteration 2 |
| Data evaluator | The eProcedure portal adds an eIDAS login option for piloting. | x | x |
| The eProcedure portal connects to a dedicated eIDAS pilot node. | x | x | |
| The eProcedure portal requests eIDAS legal person attributes (mandatory ones) | x | x | |
| The eProcedure portal grants the user access on behalf of the company in case of an “authentication successful” response. | x | ||
| The eProcedure portal additionally constructs a fine-grained powers validation request. | x | ||
| The eProcedure portal validates the Powers declaration received. | x | ||
| Authentication connector | MS implements eIDAS connector 2.4. In case of a custom implementation (like Sweden) an attribute profile 1.1-compliant version of the connector will be used for piloting. | x | x |
| MS implements SEMPER extension to the eIDAS connector. | x | ||
| MS adapts the "specific eIDAS connector" to support powers validation requests and powers declarations | x | ||
| Authentication proxy | MS implements CEF eIDAS proxy 2.4.
In case of a custom implementation (like Sweden) an attribute profile 1.1-compliant version of the connector will be used for piloting. |
x | x |
| MS implements SEMPER extension to the eIDAS connector. | x | ||
| MS adapts the "specific eIDAS proxy" to support powers validation requests and powers declarations | x | ||
| Ms connects an IdP to the eIDAS proxy node for authenticating the natural person | x | x | |
| MS connects attribute provider (AP) to eIDAS node for eIDAS legal person attributes (in case not integrated in the MMS) | x | x | |
| MS connects mandate management system (MMS) to eIDAS node for validating powers. Note: AP and MMS could be the same data source. | x | x | |
| Ms validates full powers | x | ||
| MS adds fine-grained powers validation | x |
Component Deployment
- eIDAS node 2.4 + SEMPER extension for node 2.4
Open questions AT:
- can we upgrade to eIDAS node 2.5? No compatible SEMPER extension available (check with TUG).
- can we adapt the way we request attributes for iteration 1? -> don't request the natural person attributes, use the natural person representative attributes for this (profile 1.2 style).
Component configuration
Proposal for the harmonised services to express powers cross-border:
| Service 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 |
Interfaces
The request will be a combination of a regular eIDAS request (not new) and a powers validation request (new).
Configuration for pilot iteration 1
- regular eIDAS request & response
- eIDAS attributes to request: natural person and legal person attributes (at least the mandatory ones)
- eIDAS attributes to respond with: natural person and legal person attributes (at least the mandatory ones) - including a copy of natural person attributes as representative is optional.
Configuration for pilot iteration 2
- 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 & powers declaration (response)
- 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
- request:
SAML interface specifications for regular authentication requests (pilot iteration 1) have been specified by CEF Digital: https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/eIDAS+eID+Profile SAML interfaces specification for SEMPER-extended authentication request and response (pilot iteration 2) have been specified by SEMPER: see chapter 6 from deliverable M3 Report on mandate attributes and solutions for cross-border mandate attributes - 1.0.
Solution architecture for Subscription & Notification pattern and Lookup pattern
The solution for the OOP TS chain consists of required functionality of the OOP Technical System expressed as application components and interfaces in the diagram below. Some OOP TS components need to be implemented by the data requestor and data transferor, some components by the data evaluator and data owner and some are common components to be implemented by DE4A WP5. The image below depicts the solution with the familiar split in the different roles. It is a consolidated view of iteration 1 and 2, i.e. it covers all used patterns, i.e., IM, S&N and LKP.
In the next sections the process realizations, component descriptions, requirements, component implementations and expected logical interfaces are described.
General Design Decisions
- 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. See Subscription and Notification Pattern and Lookup Pattern for more details.
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 |
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 |
Component description
The following table lists the components indicated in the image above. Per component a short decription of its use is given, by which role the component is used (i.e. DE, RDR, DT, DP) and whether the component is MS specific or common functionality.
| Component | Short description of its use | Role | Genericness |
| Evidence service locator (ESL) configuration file Issuing Authority Locator (IAL) TBC | Change w.r.t. iteration1? There is no evidence provider 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. See logical interfaces section below |
DR, DT | common |
| 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. | DR, DT | both |
| 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. |
Central | common |
| 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. | DR, DT | both |
| DE4A Connector | Taking care of eDelivery and IDK interfacing, shielding DR and DT from complexities and facilitating ease of implementation.
Error handling and logging. |
DR, DT | common |
| Authorization Controller | In case of LKP
establish which data service, e.g. evidence types can be requested and whether this is allowed under applicable Union or national law without user request and preview. In case of S&N Is the DC allowed to subscribe? Is the DP allowed to send a notification? |
DR, DT | common |
| Cross-border Event Handler | Application component handling the cross-border events. It filters all domestic events for relevant cross-border events and takes care of preparing a notification message and compiling a subscribers list to which the notification must be sent. | DO | both |
| Subscription System | Application component managing the entire life cycle of subscriptions, i.e. creation and maintaining subscriptions. It also offers functionality for validating subscriptions (does subject exist?, is the event supported?, is the subscription changing an existing subscription?), confirmation of a subscription and error handling. | DO | both |
| Notification front-end | Application component providing the UI for civil servants to dispatch events and consult logging information for trouble shooting. | DO | both? |
| Data Service | The webservice of the data provider that will output the evidence requested. | DO | specific |
| eProcedure Portal | The eProcedure portal support the use of the cross-border evidence in the process (iteration 1).
For both new patterns adaptations may be needed to the Portal, for instance when the eProcedure Back-office makes use of some of it's'functionality. TBD |
DE | both? |
| eProcedure Portal Back-end | 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).
Another change might be needed to support S&N and LKP patterns. |
DE | both |
| eProcedure Back-office Backend | This component implements backend functionality like collecting relevant data for a subscription request, determining an appropriate response to request and updating logs.
TBD is the required functionality is generic enough to justify a common component. Each DE needs to keep track of its subscriptions and needs some event handling asw ell. |
DE | both? |
| 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/owner can use the same (national) OOP protocols and services for cross-border use as well. | DE, DR | specific |
| Back-office to OOP TS | Interface for connecting the DE's backoffice with the OOP TS | DE, DR | specific |
| Data source to OOP TS Interface | Interface for connecting the data service with the OOP TS (IM & LKP). | DO, DT | specific |
| Event handler to OOP TS Interface | Interface for connecting the OOP TS with the Cross-border Event Handler. | DO, DT | specific |
Requirements
For DBA the Authorization Controller needs to check that only parties in the pilot send subscriptions and notifications.
In case of the lookup pattern (and possibler IM) the Authorization Controller checks if the vidence may be requested by DE.
The "list" from the service Notification Message and Subscriber List Preparation can be restricted to one party only.
For technical error messsages the existing WP5 list can be used. Business error messages in case of S&N TBD. For the pilot it is probably sufficient to establish the notification was received by DR (DT->DR).
Business error messages:
- DO: subscription registration failed
- DO: suscription change failed
Cross-border Event Handler
Subscription System: 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. TODO data model, operations, logical I/Fs.
A DC subscribes to the full set of cross-border events (the set is TBD).
There are two types of events, those that trigger an evidence update and those that don't. DBA needs support for a small set (5-6) of events containing both event types.
The Cross-border Event Handler could maybe be part of the Connector or at least be a common component. All DPs need this functionality.
The table below presents the requirements that the actors involved need to implement.
TO DO: check alignment of table and PSA 2nd iteration.
| Role | Nr | DBA requirement | Comment |
| Data evaluator | 1 | The DE should be able to subscribe to the combination of:
|
For piloting it is sufficient to skipp the specification of events to subscribe to. It will be all or none. |
| 2 | The DE should monitor actual subscription at the DO by processing the subscription confirmation / error. | ||
| 3 | The DE should have the option to set a defined time frame for receiving notifications to automatically end a subscription. | ||
| 4 | The DE should be able to manage the “end date” of the subscription (prolong, shorten, …). | ||
| 5 | The DE should be able to unsubscribe to all notifications for a company at once. | See req 1. for piloting a "all or none" subscription is fine. | |
| 6 | The DE should at any time have an overview of all its subscriptions in order to manage them. | ||
| 7 | The DE may process a notification instantly, but may also choose to process the notifications in batch, e.g. once a day or week. | ||
| 8 | The DE should have a legal basis for processing business events. | It’s up to the DE to manage this. The DE will be accountable for its data processing. | |
| Data requestor | 1 | The DR must confirm having received the notification (by the DR not the DE) to the DT. | From that point on delivery of the notifications to the DE is the responsibility of the DR (and not the DT or DO). |
| 2 | The DR should provide a facility for delayed forwarding of notifications to the DE. | The probably needs a queue for this. This queue should guarantee delivery of the notifications to the DE, even if the DE is not online at some point in time. | |
| Data transferor | 1 | The DT needs to confirm having received the subscription request to the DR. | |
| Data owner | 1 | The DO should send a confirmation of (un)subscription to the DE. | Including error code and handling. |
| 2 | The DO should send notifications only for a business event occurring to a company for which the DE has subscribed – for as long as the subscription is valid. | ||
| 3 | The DO should include the company identifier in the notification to allow the DE to find the corresponding record in its registry. | ||
| 4 | The DO should include additional company identifiers that the business event concern. | E.g. The identifiers of the company / companies acquiring the company concerned. | |
| 5 | The DO should clearly state in the notification what business event has occurred. | ||
| 6 | The DO should provide a timestamp of the business event separate from the timestamp of the notification. | ||
| 7 | The DO may send notifications instantly, but may also send in batch, e.g. once a day or week. | ||
| 8 | The DO should be able to send notifications independently of the availability of the DE. | In order not to hinder the notification process of the DO. | |
| 9 | The DO should not include any additional company data in the notification nor attach evidence of any type to the notification. | Data minimisation.
It will be up to the DE to process the notification. This might not need any additional data. | |
| 10 | The DO should implement one event for notifying "the company registration evidence has changes" (without specifying which business event has occurred - if any). | To cover for data changes that might be relevant for the DE without begin a direct consequence of the occurrence of a harmonised business event, e.g. e-mail address changed. |
Component implementation
DNS, SML will be reused from iteration 1.
The Evidence service locator (ESL) configuration file probably needs to change. TBD
SMP, eDelivery AS4 gateway will be reused from iteration 1.
The DE4A Connector needs an update.
Various MS specific interfaces may be needed for (sub)system integration.
Both DE and DO need to do bookkeeping of subscriptions.
Both DE and DO need some sort of event handling.
List of harmonised events in the Event catalogue "Business events" (to support by the DBA pilot):
- Company ended its operations
- Company changed its legal form
- Company merger or takeover
- Company moved to another location
- Company administration changed
- Company registration evidence has changed
TO DO: validate within DBA pilot.
National-to-harmonised translation needs to be designed by each Member State. Example for NL below (concept).
| nr | harmonised event | NL event equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Company ended its operations | beëindigen rechtspersoon
opheffen onderneming |
| 2 | Company changed its legal form | omzetten rechtspersoon |
| 3 | Company merger or takeover | fuseren rechtspersoon |
| 4 | Company moved to another location | verhuizen vestiging |
| 5 | Company administration changed | toetreden bestuurder
toetreden functionaris toetreden gemachtigde toetreden aansprakelijke bij samenwerkingsverband uittreden functionaris/bestuurder/gemachtigde/aansprakelijke bij samenwerkingsverband |
| 6 | Company registration evidence has changed | (not an event) |
Expected logical interfaces
The expected logical interfaces are expected to remain largely the same with an expansion for the new patterns.
We need to discuss with WP3/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 least the name is off. Also the I/F with the Connector changes slightly. In the table below some differences are indicated.
| Component | Expected interface |
| Evidence service locator (ESL) configuration file Issuing Authority Locator (IAL) TBC | IN (from DE4A connector to ESL configuration file):
- Member state - event type (e.g.DBA = business event) 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):
- subscription request/notification OUT (from eDelivery AS4 gateway to DE4A connector): - ACK |
| DE4A Connector | subscription
Initiating or changing subscription IN (from data evaluator to DE4A connector): - request ID (correlation) - subject identifier (company in question) - data owner identifier (DO id = participant ID) - subscriber identifier (DE id = participant ID) - event catalogue (DBA fixed business events) - action 'subscribe'/'change subscription' - (new) subscription start and end date OUT (from DE4A connector to DE): - ACK (from DT) subscription confirmation DO -> DE IN - request ID - data owner identifier (DO id = participant ID) - subscriber identifier (DE id = participant ID) - status (success/fail) OUT - ACK
notification IN (from data provider to DE4A connector): - subscriber identifier (DE ID = participant ID) - data owner identifier (DO id = participant ID) - Notification 1. catalogue event 2. event 3. timestamp event OUT (from DE4A connector to DR): - ACK (from DR)
lookup As in iteration 1. |
| Authorization Controller | lookup
IN - DE id = participant ID - evidence type id
- yes/no
IN - data evaluator identifier (DE id = participant ID) - event catalogue
- yes/no |
| Cross-border Event Handler | IN
- domestic event
- cross-border event or n/a |
| ... |
Appendix: archimate component diagrams
DBA eIDAS solution architecture
OOP TS solution architecture
TODO merge AC's and tailot to MVP.