search

peppolautoriteit-nl / Invoice-Processes-Draft

Draft documents regarding invoice to payment processes, and which documents to send in which scenario
0 stars 8 forks source link

Introduce link to sender AP in SBD envelop to be used for MLR #8

Open wimkok opened 2 years ago

wimkok commented 2 years ago

If the MLR is considered a message between the sender AP (C2) and receiver AP (C3) both AP's must be addressable outside the transport scope. This can be done by making a reference to these AP's in the SBD envelop.

The Sender/Identifier and Receiver/Identifier can be used. The original GS1 XSD has but PEPPOL give Occurence 1..1. Change by PEPPOL is required. To make a difference between the multiple Sender and Receiver you can use the order. The first occurrence is the original and the second for MLR. Another method is using a different Authority attribute. (Authority='PEPPOL.MLR')

Other solution is to use BusinessScopeBusinessScope/Scope. There are already Reserved attributes that hint to validation.

urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:ApplicationResponse-2::ApplicationResponse##urn:fdc:peppol.eu:poacc:trns:mlr:3::2.1 9xxx:IdForMLRReturn
PatrickVHL commented 2 years ago

We have agreed within the NPa Technical Workgroup to use the identifier of C1 / C4 for routing the MLR. This implementation is more in line with the implementation for other messages. Also it makes it clear who is the actual enduser that has sent the original document (and in some cases must be informed about the error). From a basic reporting perspective, the registration of MLR with an enduser schemeID gives better insight in the actual senders that are connected to Peppol.