Difference between revisions of "Lookup Pattern"

From DE4A
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Structure added for Business Process)
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 
=== Activity Table ===
 
=== Activity Table ===
 +
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 +
|'''Activity /  UC'''
 +
|'''Role'''
 +
|'''Type'''
 +
|'''Description'''
 +
|-
 +
|Request or resume (public) service procedure
 +
|U
 +
|User
 +
|The user navigates to the eProcedure in the DC  country and requests a (public) service. This means they fill in the required  information and start the eProcedure. It is specific to the MS and the  eProcedure how much information is provided by the user (i.e. which fields to  be filled out) in this activity (i.e. prior to authentication) or when  submitting the eProcedure later in the process. Email should be included as  means to contact the user or provide updates.
 +
If the user is returning to a previously started  procedure, the eProcedure will return to original instance after  authentication.
 +
|-
 +
|Request authentication
 +
|DE
 +
|Service
 +
|The DE requests the U to authenticate themselves.  This can happen in two ways, either using eIDAS (default) or using the eID of  the DC MS, in case that the U has the national eID of the DC country  available (see cases 3) and 4) in Table 4 above). The DE provides both  options to the U.
 +
|-
 +
|Provide authentication details
 +
|U
 +
|User
 +
|The U uses the means available to them to provide  the authentication details. This can happen at the user’s discretion using  the eID of the DC MS or eIDAS. In the second case, the user is forwarded to  the authentication service of the identity provider of their means of  authentication. If the user is representing another entity (typically a legal  person), this relation is also retrieved as part of this authentication.
 +
|-
 +
|Establish user identity
 +
|DE
 +
|Service
 +
|The DE establishes the identity of  the U in the DC MS environment. In the eIDAS case, this means that the eIDAS  uniqueness ID must be linked to the national identification number used to  access the MS registries. In the national eID case, this means that the eIDAS  attributes (mandatory and optional) must be retrieved for further use in the  process. In case of business user, the company identification must be  matched. The match of the representing natural person to a population  register is not required in all MS.
 +
|-
 +
|Redirect user to another channel
 +
|DE
 +
|Service
 +
|Exception handling activity: The U  cannot be identified in an automated way by the DC and alternative digital or  non-digital channel information (depending on the eProcedure at hand user and  potentially dependent on the type of identification error) is collected and  provided to the U.
 +
|-
 +
|Abort eProcedure
 +
|U
 +
|User
 +
|Exception handling activity:  Alternative channel information is displayed to the user and the user exits  the e-procedure.
 +
|-
 +
|Determine procedural requirements
 +
|DE
 +
|Service
 +
|The DE compares the available  information (i.e. in the DC MS registries via the national OOP layer) with  the information required by the eProcedure. The result can be a (list of)  required evidence, defined in terms of the DC country, which is then  displayed to the user as a request to provide the evidence, together with the  option for the user to request the evidence via the OOTS.
 +
This activity is not trivial and  should prevent that we ask a User for evidence that is readily available in  the DC MS and might not be available in the OOTS cross-border scope.
  
 +
Example: It would not make any  sense for a Dutch DC to ask a German national born in the Netherlands to  provide a birth certificate (which he could not get via the OOTS as it is not  cross-border). A similar situation would be asking a French national with a  Belgian university diploma to provide that diploma in order to be admitted  for a PhD in another Belgian university.
 +
|-
 +
|Request OOP transfer of evidence
 +
|U
 +
|User
 +
|The user choses to request the  evidence to be fetched for them using the OOTS – the explicit OOP request.  The user also indicates – in a guided way – which MS, and possibly lower  administrative level, issues the required evidence. Alternatively, the user  could provide (i.e. upload) the evidence, but that would not involve the OOTS  at all, so we are not considering this case in the reference architecture.
 +
|-
 +
|Determine required cross-border  evidence
 +
|DE
 +
|Service
 +
|The required evidence type (in  terms of the DC country) is translated into equivalent evidence types that  are issued in a lawful way in the DP country indicated by the user.
 +
|-
 +
|Lookup routing information
 +
|DR
 +
|Service
 +
|The DR retrieves the technical  routing information (e.g. eDelivery rooting identifier or URL of the  webservice provider), based on the evidence type (in terms of DP country) and  the issuing competent authority (or geographic scope of authority).
 +
|-
 +
|Request evidence
 +
|DR
 +
|Service
 +
|The DR encrypts, signs and sends  the evidence request to the identified technical data service interface of (potentially  several) DP. The evidence request must include user information that enables  the DP to identify for which user or represented company the evidence must be  issued.
 +
|-
 +
|Evaluate evidence request
 +
|DT
 +
|Service
 +
|The DT receives and decrypts the  request and checks whether the request meets formal requirements and can be  accepted. It should be checked whether the requesting competent authority can  reasonably and rightfully request that specific type of evidence.
 +
|-
 +
|Re-establish user identity
 +
|DO
 +
|Service
 +
|The DO matches the information  about the user (i.e. eIDAS mandatory and optional attributes) with the DP  country’s records to identify the user in their systems. This amounts to  matching the eIDAS attributes to a national identification number. This is a Data  Owner activity, because in a distributed scenario the data transferor might  not have a legal basis to do so.
 +
|-
 +
|Communicate non-availability of  OOP
 +
|DT
 +
|Service
 +
|Exception handling activity: The  DT informs the DR that the user cannot be identified unequivocally and the  OOTS cannot be used to transfer the evidence.
 +
|-
 +
|Extract evidence
 +
|DO
 +
|Service
 +
|The DO extracts the requested  evidence form their registry and forwards it to the DT.
 +
|-
 +
|Communicate non-availability of  evidence
 +
|DT
 +
|Service
 +
|Exception handling activity: The  DT informs the DR that the requested evidence cannot be provided or cannot be  provided within the agreed SLA.
 +
|-
 +
|Establish non-availability of OOP
 +
|DR
 +
|Service
 +
|Exception handling activity: The  DR catches the negative (non-evidence) response from the DT and establishes  the reason in terms of the DC country system and language:
 +
There are potentially several  reasons why an OOP transfer of evidence is not available. The DT communicates  these reasons to the DR in all cases that the evidence request cannot be  fulfilled (i.e. by sending the digitally available evidence within the agreed  SLA as described above).
 +
 +
At the moment we expect at least  the following reasons for such an exception that should be framed in standard  error messages or codes, each one with a corresponding recommendation to the  user.
 +
 +
User cannot be uniquely identified  – fallback to another channel (i.e. IMI)
 +
 +
Evidence not found – Check whether  the request specified the correct geographical scope of authority and contact  the DP directly if that was the case
 +
 +
Evidence transfer blocked for  legal or authorization reasons – Contact the DP directly
 +
 +
Evidence is not readily available  in a digital format now. Expected time for the evidence to be available is x  days – return after x days and issue a new evidence request
 +
|-
 +
|Update evidence status
 +
|DE
 +
|Service
 +
|The DE updates the status of a  requested evidence and provides that update to the user in the evidence  overview. Additionally, the update could be sent to the user via e-mail,  including a link to the status overview page.
 +
|-
 +
|Follow evidence status
 +
|U
 +
|User
 +
|After the user requested the OOP  transfer of evidence, they observe the status of the evidence request on an  evidence status overview. It essentially shows the progress or the request  for each separate requested evidence. These statuses should include:
 +
Evidence requested, expected  response in x minutes/seconds
 +
 +
Preview available (click here)
 +
 +
Evidence approved
 +
 +
SLA overrun – please try again  later
 +
 +
User identification failed
 +
 +
Evidence not available
 +
 +
Evidence expected to be available  in y days – please return
 +
 +
If a preview is ready for the user  this is shown in the overview, including a link (or similar) that allows the  user to navigate to the preview.
 +
|-
 +
|Compose evidence response
 +
|DO
 +
|Service
 +
|The DO prepares the extracted evidence to be send as an evidence response. Depending on the level of harmonization of the evidence type this task can differ in complexity. If a canonical evidence definition is agreed, this task includes the translation of the national definitions into the canonical evidence.
 +
|-
 +
|Transfer evidence
 +
|DT
 +
|Service
 +
|The DT creates the evidence response message (compliant to agreed message format), encrypts and signs the message and sends it to the DR.
 +
|-
 +
|Forward evidence
 +
|DR
 +
|Service
 +
|The DR registers the receipt,  decrypts the message and in many cases encrypts the message in a MS specific  format to hand it on to the DE. It must also be established whether the evidence  can be used right away, because the exchange is allowed under EU or national  law, or must be previewed.
 +
|-
 +
|Prepare preview
 +
|DE
 +
|Service
 +
|The DE prepares a preview for the  U and provides it to UI to be displayed in the User session.
 +
|-
 +
|Preview evidence
 +
|U
 +
|User
 +
|The user can view the evidence in  a UI or UI component (i.e. widget/frame) separate from the actual eProcedure  form (i.e. the preview should not be data auto-filled in the eProcedure form  itself. This requires an aligned UI framework in the MS. Alternatively, the  Preview could be provided in a second window/tab (with consideration for accessibility  requirements). In any case, the user can approve the use of the evidence in  the eProcedure or can decline the use of the evidence. The U should be  reassured that the evidence is not kept by the DC in case of non-approval.
 +
|-
 +
|Delete evidence
 +
|DE
 +
|Service
 +
|Exception handling activity: An  evidence that was declined by the user must be deleted permanently from all  systems in the DC MS.
 +
|-
 +
|Evaluate evidence
 +
|DE
 +
|Service
 +
|The DE checks whether all  requested evidences are available and validates that they conform to the  evidence type requested. In the positive scenario that all evidences are  available, the DE communicates to the user that the procedure can be  submitted. In the negative case that not all evidences are received, the DE  communicates this back to the U. The Procedure can then not be completed.
 +
|-
 +
|Save or abort (public) service  request
 +
|U
 +
|User
 +
|Exception handling activity: The U  is informed that not all required evidence could be received, hence that  there are still missing evidences preventing the eProcedure to be completed.  It depends (only) on the functionality of the specific eProcedure portal what  options are provided to the U. We expect that in most cases the user can save  the procedure in order to return at a later stage, to repeat the cross-border  OOP request or to provide the missing evidence themselves.
 +
|-
 +
|Receive acknowledgement of receipt
 +
|U
 +
|Receive
 +
|The U is waiting to receive the  acknowledgment that all required evidence is received by the DC. The  acknowledgment is displayed in the eProcedure portal (optionally a copy sent  by e-mail or deposited in a government-hosted, secure message box).
 +
|-
 +
|Submit eProcedure
 +
|U
 +
|User
 +
|The U fills the remaining fields  required for the eProcedure. It is specific to the MS and the eProcedure  which fields to be filled out in this activity or when requesting the  eProcedure at the start of the process.
 +
Usually the U is prompted to verify  the provided information in an overview before hitting the Submit button.
 +
|-
 +
|Provide public service
 +
|DE
 +
|Sub-process
 +
|This is a subprocess that is very  heterogenous in composition and timeline, depending on which public service  is provided and by which competent authority. Theoretically, the subprocess  could be fully automated in some cases, but typically this is a back-office  process involving multiple activities of public servants and might take days  to several weeks. In many countries the maximum time for this process is  defined by law.
 +
|-
 +
|Receive (public) service result
 +
|U
 +
|Receive
 +
|Once the public service is  completed, the result is provided to the U. This communication is fully  dependent on the functionalities of the eProcedure portal (e.g. e-mail and/or  government-hosted, secure message box).
 +
|}
 
== EC Important document ISA<sup>2</sup> Action ‘Innovative Public Services’: Piloting a REST API extension of CEF eDelivery, 30/10/2020 v1.1 [1] ==
 
== EC Important document ISA<sup>2</sup> Action ‘Innovative Public Services’: Piloting a REST API extension of CEF eDelivery, 30/10/2020 v1.1 [1] ==
 
API project in ISA<sup>2</sup> Action INNOVATIVE PUBLIC SERVICE
 
API project in ISA<sup>2</sup> Action INNOVATIVE PUBLIC SERVICE

Revision as of 10:24, 11 June 2021

Lookup Pattern D2.1:

Lookup Pattern

The lookup pattern is considered for a specific purpose; Its main characteristic is online and near real-time (NRT) use of information. The information is simple, attributes based. This is only applicable in cases where the exchange has a legal basis and can be executed without explicit User consent.

When the required information is not available right away, the process requiring the information stops and needs to be executed again from the start (as soon as the required information is available again).

This pattern requires synchronous communication, i.e. it must be “light weight”. This pattern ties DP and DC closely together: the DC cannot provide its service in case the DP is not available means that DC and DP usually know each other up front and the communication relationship is set up to cover a large number of repetitive interactions over time.

Functional Variants of the Lookup Pattern

Evidence Lookup

Attribute Lookup

Alternative Solution Approaches

Business Process of the Evidence Lookup

Business Process Collaboration View

Activity Table

Activity / UC Role Type Description
Request or resume (public) service procedure U User The user navigates to the eProcedure in the DC country and requests a (public) service. This means they fill in the required information and start the eProcedure. It is specific to the MS and the eProcedure how much information is provided by the user (i.e. which fields to be filled out) in this activity (i.e. prior to authentication) or when submitting the eProcedure later in the process. Email should be included as means to contact the user or provide updates.

If the user is returning to a previously started procedure, the eProcedure will return to original instance after authentication.

Request authentication DE Service The DE requests the U to authenticate themselves. This can happen in two ways, either using eIDAS (default) or using the eID of the DC MS, in case that the U has the national eID of the DC country available (see cases 3) and 4) in Table 4 above). The DE provides both options to the U.
Provide authentication details U User The U uses the means available to them to provide the authentication details. This can happen at the user’s discretion using the eID of the DC MS or eIDAS. In the second case, the user is forwarded to the authentication service of the identity provider of their means of authentication. If the user is representing another entity (typically a legal person), this relation is also retrieved as part of this authentication.
Establish user identity DE Service The DE establishes the identity of the U in the DC MS environment. In the eIDAS case, this means that the eIDAS uniqueness ID must be linked to the national identification number used to access the MS registries. In the national eID case, this means that the eIDAS attributes (mandatory and optional) must be retrieved for further use in the process. In case of business user, the company identification must be matched. The match of the representing natural person to a population register is not required in all MS.
Redirect user to another channel DE Service Exception handling activity: The U cannot be identified in an automated way by the DC and alternative digital or non-digital channel information (depending on the eProcedure at hand user and potentially dependent on the type of identification error) is collected and provided to the U.
Abort eProcedure U User Exception handling activity: Alternative channel information is displayed to the user and the user exits the e-procedure.
Determine procedural requirements DE Service The DE compares the available information (i.e. in the DC MS registries via the national OOP layer) with the information required by the eProcedure. The result can be a (list of) required evidence, defined in terms of the DC country, which is then displayed to the user as a request to provide the evidence, together with the option for the user to request the evidence via the OOTS.

This activity is not trivial and should prevent that we ask a User for evidence that is readily available in the DC MS and might not be available in the OOTS cross-border scope.

Example: It would not make any sense for a Dutch DC to ask a German national born in the Netherlands to provide a birth certificate (which he could not get via the OOTS as it is not cross-border). A similar situation would be asking a French national with a Belgian university diploma to provide that diploma in order to be admitted for a PhD in another Belgian university.

Request OOP transfer of evidence U User The user choses to request the evidence to be fetched for them using the OOTS – the explicit OOP request. The user also indicates – in a guided way – which MS, and possibly lower administrative level, issues the required evidence. Alternatively, the user could provide (i.e. upload) the evidence, but that would not involve the OOTS at all, so we are not considering this case in the reference architecture.
Determine required cross-border evidence DE Service The required evidence type (in terms of the DC country) is translated into equivalent evidence types that are issued in a lawful way in the DP country indicated by the user.
Lookup routing information DR Service The DR retrieves the technical routing information (e.g. eDelivery rooting identifier or URL of the webservice provider), based on the evidence type (in terms of DP country) and the issuing competent authority (or geographic scope of authority).
Request evidence DR Service The DR encrypts, signs and sends the evidence request to the identified technical data service interface of (potentially several) DP. The evidence request must include user information that enables the DP to identify for which user or represented company the evidence must be issued.
Evaluate evidence request DT Service The DT receives and decrypts the request and checks whether the request meets formal requirements and can be accepted. It should be checked whether the requesting competent authority can reasonably and rightfully request that specific type of evidence.
Re-establish user identity DO Service The DO matches the information about the user (i.e. eIDAS mandatory and optional attributes) with the DP country’s records to identify the user in their systems. This amounts to matching the eIDAS attributes to a national identification number. This is a Data Owner activity, because in a distributed scenario the data transferor might not have a legal basis to do so.
Communicate non-availability of OOP DT Service Exception handling activity: The DT informs the DR that the user cannot be identified unequivocally and the OOTS cannot be used to transfer the evidence.
Extract evidence DO Service The DO extracts the requested evidence form their registry and forwards it to the DT.
Communicate non-availability of evidence DT Service Exception handling activity: The DT informs the DR that the requested evidence cannot be provided or cannot be provided within the agreed SLA.
Establish non-availability of OOP DR Service Exception handling activity: The DR catches the negative (non-evidence) response from the DT and establishes the reason in terms of the DC country system and language:

There are potentially several reasons why an OOP transfer of evidence is not available. The DT communicates these reasons to the DR in all cases that the evidence request cannot be fulfilled (i.e. by sending the digitally available evidence within the agreed SLA as described above).

At the moment we expect at least the following reasons for such an exception that should be framed in standard error messages or codes, each one with a corresponding recommendation to the user.

User cannot be uniquely identified – fallback to another channel (i.e. IMI)

Evidence not found – Check whether the request specified the correct geographical scope of authority and contact the DP directly if that was the case

Evidence transfer blocked for legal or authorization reasons – Contact the DP directly

Evidence is not readily available in a digital format now. Expected time for the evidence to be available is x days – return after x days and issue a new evidence request

Update evidence status DE Service The DE updates the status of a requested evidence and provides that update to the user in the evidence overview. Additionally, the update could be sent to the user via e-mail, including a link to the status overview page.
Follow evidence status U User After the user requested the OOP transfer of evidence, they observe the status of the evidence request on an evidence status overview. It essentially shows the progress or the request for each separate requested evidence. These statuses should include:

Evidence requested, expected response in x minutes/seconds

Preview available (click here)

Evidence approved

SLA overrun – please try again later

User identification failed

Evidence not available

Evidence expected to be available in y days – please return

If a preview is ready for the user this is shown in the overview, including a link (or similar) that allows the user to navigate to the preview.

Compose evidence response DO Service The DO prepares the extracted evidence to be send as an evidence response. Depending on the level of harmonization of the evidence type this task can differ in complexity. If a canonical evidence definition is agreed, this task includes the translation of the national definitions into the canonical evidence.
Transfer evidence DT Service The DT creates the evidence response message (compliant to agreed message format), encrypts and signs the message and sends it to the DR.
Forward evidence DR Service The DR registers the receipt, decrypts the message and in many cases encrypts the message in a MS specific format to hand it on to the DE. It must also be established whether the evidence can be used right away, because the exchange is allowed under EU or national law, or must be previewed.
Prepare preview DE Service The DE prepares a preview for the U and provides it to UI to be displayed in the User session.
Preview evidence U User The user can view the evidence in a UI or UI component (i.e. widget/frame) separate from the actual eProcedure form (i.e. the preview should not be data auto-filled in the eProcedure form itself. This requires an aligned UI framework in the MS. Alternatively, the Preview could be provided in a second window/tab (with consideration for accessibility requirements). In any case, the user can approve the use of the evidence in the eProcedure or can decline the use of the evidence. The U should be reassured that the evidence is not kept by the DC in case of non-approval.
Delete evidence DE Service Exception handling activity: An evidence that was declined by the user must be deleted permanently from all systems in the DC MS.
Evaluate evidence DE Service The DE checks whether all requested evidences are available and validates that they conform to the evidence type requested. In the positive scenario that all evidences are available, the DE communicates to the user that the procedure can be submitted. In the negative case that not all evidences are received, the DE communicates this back to the U. The Procedure can then not be completed.
Save or abort (public) service request U User Exception handling activity: The U is informed that not all required evidence could be received, hence that there are still missing evidences preventing the eProcedure to be completed. It depends (only) on the functionality of the specific eProcedure portal what options are provided to the U. We expect that in most cases the user can save the procedure in order to return at a later stage, to repeat the cross-border OOP request or to provide the missing evidence themselves.
Receive acknowledgement of receipt U Receive The U is waiting to receive the acknowledgment that all required evidence is received by the DC. The acknowledgment is displayed in the eProcedure portal (optionally a copy sent by e-mail or deposited in a government-hosted, secure message box).
Submit eProcedure U User The U fills the remaining fields required for the eProcedure. It is specific to the MS and the eProcedure which fields to be filled out in this activity or when requesting the eProcedure at the start of the process.

Usually the U is prompted to verify the provided information in an overview before hitting the Submit button.

Provide public service DE Sub-process This is a subprocess that is very heterogenous in composition and timeline, depending on which public service is provided and by which competent authority. Theoretically, the subprocess could be fully automated in some cases, but typically this is a back-office process involving multiple activities of public servants and might take days to several weeks. In many countries the maximum time for this process is defined by law.
Receive (public) service result U Receive Once the public service is completed, the result is provided to the U. This communication is fully dependent on the functionalities of the eProcedure portal (e.g. e-mail and/or government-hosted, secure message box).

EC Important document ISA2 Action ‘Innovative Public Services’: Piloting a REST API extension of CEF eDelivery, 30/10/2020 v1.1 [1]

API project in ISA2 Action INNOVATIVE PUBLIC SERVICE

Source European Commission
Action Owner CONNECT (DIGIT, JRC).
Objectives &

scope

Develop relevant legal, organizational and technical artefacts trialled through a combination of the CEF eDelivery building block with blockchain-based transactions’ log and a REST-based profile (a.k.a. APIs approach), that support new patterns of data access by request and data sharing. The initiative will facilitate design choices on the legal, organizational, semantic and technical level necessary for setting up APIs.

The REST-based profile is relevant for DE4A Lookup pattern; however the scope of the API project is wider. The envisaged implementation is an extension of the eDelivery BB.

Piloting a REST API extension of CEF eDelivery [1] contains a lot of useful information. What follows is an extract.

Business need

A BB with a profile to cater for the REST API architectural style primarily addressing different architectures and communication patterns than those already supported by the eDelivery AS4 profile. The data exchange would operate in a light context.

Light Context

The term “light context” refers to a set of constraints and circumstances applying to organisations or environments that do not run (in) an enterprise IT data centre (non-limitative):

  • Organisational constraints
  • Hardware and IT infrastructure constraints
  • “Low throughput” scenarios
  • Limitations introduced by sandbox environments

Requirements

Requirements envisaged specification:

  • Simple or automatic installation of the software
  • Minimal or zero configuration that assumes no advanced knowledge of the used technology
  • Minimal operation and maintenance
  • Ease of use with immediate start and no complicated enrolment
  • Reduced requirements on the hardware resource
  • Reduced access privileges on the host

Legal Basis

Legal basis: carried out under the ISA² action on Innovative Public Services, legal artefacts are also envisaged.

Analysis - decisions to be made for DE4A

Things to consider:

  • Number of corners, 2 or more (even >4)

The specification/profile could consider a variable number of corners, starting with as few as two and extending the model to support an arbitrary number greater than four (interoperability with other existing protocols and message/data exchange networks).

  1. 2-corner – traditional client-server call (proposed for DE4A as simplifying assumption)
  2. 3-corner – a reduced version of the 4-corner where corners C1 and C2 are collapsed into a single corner, C1+2, or corners C2 and C3 are collapsed into a single corner, C2+3
  3. Four corners or more, in particular in the sense of not introducing accidental barriers to interoperability between the REST API profile and other existing protocols and message/data exchange networks is concerned (CEF eDelivery AS4, SDG, X-Road, GAIA-X). The profile should strive to minimise the need for a conformant API to be adapted for use in different such networks.
  • Communication patterns

Various communication patterns can be considered:

  1. Synchronous business response (the sending corner (C1) sends a business message to the receiving corner (C2) via an http request and expects a business response. The http response it receives from C2 contains a business message and completes the exchange) (proposed for as simplifying assumptionDE4A)
  2. Asynchronous business response (the sending corner (C1) sends a business message to the receiving corner (C2) via an http request and expects a business response. The http response it receives from C2 contains no business message, but only an acknowledgment of receipt. The business response will be obtained at a later time, e.g., through a pull or web socket).
  3. No business response (the sending corner (C1) sends a business message to the receiving corner (C2) via an http request and does not expect a business response. The http response it receives from C2 contains only an acknowledgment of receipt and competes the exchange).
  4. reliable delivery (in a 3-corner model, by enabling retry calls from C2 to C3)
  5. broadcast (in a 3-corner model, by forwarding the call to a list of recipients)
  6. asynchronous send buffer / streaming (send buffer instead of full message)
  7. correlated calls to transmit multi-part messages
  8. etc.
  • Identity

Direct management of certificates is impractical in a “light context”, alternative authorisation approaches relying on protocols designed for the web/mobile application world are required.

  1. OAuth 2.0 / OpenID Connect
  2. JSON Web Token
  3. SAML
  4. Web authentication
  5. FIDO 2
  6. potentially others (e.g., EU Login)

TODO proposal for DE4A

  • Transport protocols

DE4A proposal HTTP/JSON

  • Integrity & confidentiality

TLS (see WP5 recommendation)

message signing option (TODO DE4A recommendation)

  • (Q)ERDS = Qualified Electronic Registered Delivery Service

DE4A not required

Way forward DE4A

Alternative Purpose
Intermediation Pattern without user intervention. Simply put, no explicit request from the user and no preview.

IM is used but in a simplified form.

Update an evidence type. Request a full evidence.
Lookup

e.g. DBA uses an existing API to request some attributes

Request attributes.


Used by the following use cases

DBA (UC2)

Application collaborations

TBD