Change Request: Identifying message formats in headers

[MichaelJBRichards]

Open API for FSP Interoperability - Change Request

Table of Contents

• 1. Preface
  • 1.1 Change Request Information
  • 1.2 Document Version Information
• 2. Problem Description
  • 2.1 Background
  • 2.2 Current Behaviour
  • 2.3 Requested Behaviour
• 3 Proposed Solution Options

1. Preface

---

This section contains basic information regarding the change request.

1.1 Change Request Information

| Requested By | Michael Richards, MLF | | Change Request Status | In review ☒ / Approved ☐ / Rejected ☐ | | Approved/Rejected Date | |

1.2 Document Version Information

Version	Date	Author	Change Description
1.0	2024-10-17	Michael Richards	Initial version of issue. Sent out for review.

2. Problem Description

---

2.1 Background

At present, the Accept parameter in the message header represents the API version that the sender of a message would like to use. This enables version negotiation between participants, and is currently defined here.

The Accept parameter is structured in the following way:

• An application type The application type is always application/vnd.interoperability.{resource}, where {resource} is the actual resource (for example, participants or quotes).
• A data exchange format. The only data exchange format currently supported is json.
• A version number.
  • If a client can use any minor version of a major version, only the major version should be sent; for example, version=1 or version=2.
  • If a client would like to use a specific minor version, this should be indicated by using the specific major.minor version; for example, version=1.2 or version=2.8. The use of a specific major.minor version in the request should generally be avoided, as minor versions should be backwards-compatible.

For example: Accept: application/vnd.interoperability.transfers+json;version=1

When we consider the implementation of message content based on ISO 20022 alongside one based on FSPIOP, we shall need to consider whether the structure of the Accept parameter needs to be changed to specify the structure of the message content; and, if so, how this should be done.

2.2 Current Behaviour

The current structure of the Accept parameter does not allow for distinctions of message structure.

Since the resource type is currently used to allow participants to support different versions of individual resources (for instance, it would allow a DFSP to support version 1.1 of PISP and version 2 of transfers), using this part of the parameter to define the structure of the message content would remove this flexibility.

2.3 Requested Behaviour

There are basically two approaches:

1. Leave the Accept parameter as it is, and allow the structure of the message content (ISO 20022 or FSPIOP) to be implicit as regards the header.
2. Modify the Accept parameter to include the structure of the message content. Given the constraints described above, this would mean adding a new field to the Accept parameter.

Changing the structure of the Accept parameter would require changes to the ways in which DFSPs and the switch evaluate the validity of a message.

3. Proposed Solution Options

---

[bushjames]

@PaulGregoryBaker would you mind outlining your proposed solution here so we can discuss at the next available opportunity. Many thanks.