Use of IIA-CODE

[skishk]

In the Thessalonìki meeting I talked about the bad usage of IIA-CODE, so it is just to remember to all how we could use IIA-CODE because our IROs saw that some providers use it as an ID so it is not readable from the user.

you can find clarification here: https://github.com/erasmus-without-paper/ewp-specs-api-iias/blob/84cf84ce6c6322942cb697a95b1d64074d4dc863/endpoints/get-response.xsd#L117

so if the IIA-ID is for example : 84cf84-ce6c6322-942cb697-a95b1d6-4074d4dc-863 IIA-CODE could not be the same of ID... must be something easy to read.

hope could be useful for the network

[umesh-qs]

I am aware that Dashboard is keeping same value for ID and Code. May be @kkaraogl can explain or @janinamincer-daszkiewicz can throw some light if this is correct?

[kkaraogl]

How to better utilize the IIA-Code from remote partners is also a question of mine, for partners that do not use the same.

For debugging reasons, for communication between technical teams, and for tickets in the SD, the IIA-ID is used. I can't recall of a case when a partner or a user came forward with just an IIA-CODE.

[skishk]

there are different scenarios of a wrong usage of IIA-ID and IIA-CODE: scenario 1:

Partner A show IIA-ID (84cf84-ce6c6322-942cb697-a95b1d6-4074d4dc-863) in the front-end, so IRO Partner A communicate something by email o call to the IRO of Partner B using what is seeing on his screen. Partner B see on his screen the IIA-CODE (123456) so can't understand Partner A what is talking about... (we must imagine this scenario for hundreds IIA)

Scenario 2: Partner A use for his IIA-CODE the same value of IIA-ID (84cf84-ce6c6322-942cb697-a95b1d6-4074d4dc-863) so it's something not human readable that create problems in communication by email or call.

in both scenarios IIA-CODE is not used well and that create problems between IROs.

it is really easy this specification so i hope all providers fix it with the correct usage of IIA-CODE.

[kkaraogl]

I do not see the problem in having the same, if they both are user-friendly.

This 84cf84-ce6c6322-942cb697-a95b1d6-4074d4dc-863 in the IIA Code is definitely not user-friendly.

[skishk]

This 84cf84-ce6c6322-942cb697-a95b1d6-4074d4dc-863 in the IIA Code is definitely not user-friendly.

yeah exactly if they are the same but readable it could be ok, but if they are like this, it's out of specification.

[kkaraogl]

Maybe adding examples in the specs, some dos and donts, so that everyone is on the same page. To be honest, it is already stated there that the IIA-CODE should be user-friendly already.

@janinamincer-daszkiewicz what is your opinion on this?

[janinamincer-daszkiewicz]

I do not yet see what is missing in the current specs. If anybody of you see a problem in any part of specification concerning these codes - give your change proposal and we will together review it.

[skishk]

give your change proposal and we will together review it.

probably just adding an example like: CORRECT: IIA-ID = 84cf84-ce6c6322-942cb697-a95b1d6-4074d4dc-863 IIA-CODE = 123456

CORRECT: IIA-ID = 123456 IIA-CODE = 123456

WRONG: IIA-ID = 84cf84-ce6c6322-942cb697-a95b1d6-4074d4dc-863 IIA-CODE = 84cf84-ce6c6322-942cb697-a95b1d6-4074d4dc-863

WRONG: IIA-ID = 123456 IIA-CODE = 84cf84-ce6c6322-942cb697-a95b1d6-4074d4dc-863

and talking about this in the next IF forum could be helpful. I know that is a really simple specification... but believe me, I read emails threads between our IRO and partner IRO where no one is understanding something only for this wrong usage of the IIA-CODE. I hope no one change IIA-ID if now is managing wrongly IIA-CODE.

[demilatof]

probably just adding an example like:

Another useful tip maybe suggesting to modify the GUI to show "IIA ID" or "IIA Code" in front of the ID/Code, so that could be clear if the partner's IROs are referring to the IIA ID or to IIA Code

[janinamincer-daszkiewicz]

I wouldn't mind giving more examples in the specification but I am afraid that this will start a new discussion on what is user friendly and what is not. For me 123456 is OK, but 123456789 less OK. I would prefer something like IT-2023-001.

Could you share with me (by email) names of providers who use IIA-CODE which cannot be considered user-friendly by general standards? I will contact them. May be they just missed this part of the specification and will be willing to change their implementation?

I will also add slide to the presentation. We may not have time to discuss it but at least everybody will see.

[janinamincer-daszkiewicz]

Slides ready :)