Super. Stream: Data Standards & E-Commerce B 2 B Messaging Reportback Discussion Paper Technical Co-design Review (18/6) Business Focus Group (21/6) 29 June 2012 UNCLASSIFIED
Superannuation Data & E-Commerce Standards Legislative Framework Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 Enabling Legislation Data and Payment Standards Regulations Explanatory Memo Regulations Instrument Data and Payment Standards Legislative Instrument Explanatory Statement Technical Documentation (as referenced in the Leg Instrument) 1 User Roles & Pathways 2 3 4 Superannuation Standard Business Message Terms & Implementation Document Definitions Guide Specification 5 Messaging Services Specification 6 Error Code Lists 7 Conformance Test Protocols 8 Collaboration Protocol Agreement 9 Payment Methods User Guides 2
Ebms & AS 4 Profile Recap and Update 3
Messaging aspects of the standard Using ebms standard as a way to evolve SBR to address the core messaging issues from a B 2 B perspective SBR/XBRL Data Standard + Web services/SOAP Message Standard + BECS Direct Entry/ BPAY Payment Standard ? • • • Peer to peer trading? Interoperability? Message reliability? Security? Presence? Multiple capabilities? 4 Page 4
‘AS 4’ ticks the boxes The AS 4 profile in ebms 3. 0 meets nearly all Super. Stream requirements International standard a Maintained by OASIS – reputable, well credentialed Flexible conformance & user profiles a Supports high end roles of gateway/message brokers, as well as low end capabilities of business users Flexible message exchange patterns a Two-way sync is specified in ebms 3. 0 but not the AS 4 profile. Can be added as ‘extra’. Payload agnostic a Allows payloads other than XBRL to be handled Message enveloping a Can maintain SBDM structure used in SBR or change to ebms 3 Reliable delivery a Based on A 2 receipts or WS reliability Packaging a MTOM vs SWA Error messaging a Carried in SOAP Header Security and authentication a Covers signing/SSL requirements and multiple authentication models Transport and routing a SOAP 1. 2, http 1. 1 with ability for point-to-point and multi-hop Compression Splitting/joining of files a X Gzip can be added as ‘extra’ feature from standard Breaking up very large files. Could be added as ‘extra’ 5 Page 5
Broad industry reach eb. XML message services are being used today in multiple industries Automotive industry Public health industry High tech industry Utilities industry US in the Automotive retail industry (dealer networks) and automotive manufacturers. US in Centre for Disease Control and hospital networks. Globally development of ebms messaging was pioneered by Fujitsu, EDS, IBM, Sun, etc as a web services based B 2 B messaging protocol. Cisco has adopted AS 4 for its B 2 B interactions with supply chain partners. In Australia, the gas and electricity industries have been using ebms 1. 0 for a number of years. Telecoms industry In Australia, the National Broadband Network has recently announced Primus as its first supplier certified to AS 4 level accreditation. Public sector In NZ, Inland Revenue has adopted ebms 3. 0 for redeveloping all of its interactions with the community – treating all interactions as a B 2 B problem Retail industry Led by the huge Walmart supply chain implementations, retail is a very large user of AS 2. The AS 4 profile is closely modelled on this earlier version and retains backward 6 compatability.
Ebms 3. 0 leading on web services What Cisco says “…web services have gained prominence as a protocol for exchanging business data for B 2 B interactions due to the ease of use, and ubiquitous availability of tools and skills. W 3 C has developed several standards such as SOAP, Sw. A, MTOM, WS-Security, WS Reliability, and WSReliable. Messaging to enable the necessary quality of service required to support business transactions over web services… Cisco choose AS 4 as the lightweight messaging standard since it meets all the key requirements, and it is an industry leading standard”. Cisco has deployed service quoting, rebates and cloud service integration amongst its business partners using AS 4. CISCO, White Paper, Web Services External (WS-X) An AS 4 Implementation at Cisco, 2010 7
Messaging Services AS 4 Profile – Feature Set Aspect Options Payload Types XML Flat File Payload Compression GZIP Deflate Message Exchange Patterns One Way Two Way Transport Channel Binding Synch Push Message Grouping Bundling Splitting/Joining Message Envelope SBR eb. MS 2 Message Packaging SWA MTOM Reliable Delivery Synchronous Response “AS 2” Receipts (inc NRR) Sequences (WS-Reliability) Authentication Username/Password X 509 SAML Client SSL Persistent Security Signing Encryption Error Management Faults Signals Nature of Services General Messaging Functional Routing Point-to-Point Multi-hop Web Service Framework SOAP 1. 2 REST EDIINT XML-RPC Transient Security SSL Transport HTTP 1. 1 SMTP FTP Prescibed features Could be specified as alternative Desired features Binary Pull eb. MS 3 Alternate features Other possible features 8
Ebms/AS 4 evalution Summary of pros and cons Pros Cons n Is a fully documented international standard (ISO) with high level of maturity and wide industry adoption n Has a long and well credentialed pedigree back to the days of EDI/AS 2 n Has high credibility having been eveloped by big names in IT world including Cisco, Fujitsu and IBM n Utilise web services based messaging built around the XML language – meets SBR aspiration n Implementations are increasingly supported by vendor and open source products in the market – not all yet at 3. 0 level n Release of the AS 4 profile in conjunction with ebms 3. 0 introduced significant flexibility into implementation of the standard – enabling ‘light weight’ implementation and ‘just enough’ design concepts n Independent testing and certification resources support the standard n Ticks nearly all the boxes needed by Super. Stream to resolve e-commerce protocols issues n AS 4 is not yet fully supported by wide range of vendor and open source products n The standard represents a new learning curve for the industry, but many parts are already familiar n International standards change and evolve over time which will require governance decisions and responses at Australia SBR/Super. Stream level n SBR Program Board has not yet endorsed evolution of SBR in this direction n Implementers at the high capability level will need to consider the business case/trade-off issues associated with protection of legacy investments vs integrating new capabilities 9
User Roles Mapping to Conformance Profiles User Role Best Fit Mapping to Conformance Profile* 1 Employer – entrylevel Suits small to medium employer with low IT or message handling capability ‘Ultra-light’ or ‘Basic’ 2 Employer – advanced level Suits employers with significant IT skills and message handling capability ‘High-end’ or ‘Large-volume’ 3 Employer with agent Suits employers of any size who have opted to meet obligations by engaging a service partner or intermediary to act on their behalf ‘Ultra-light’, ‘Basic’, ‘High-end’ or ‘Large-volume’ 4 APRA Fund Applies to any APRA fund who choose to process prescribed transactions using their own IT resources. ‘Basic’, ‘High-end’ or ‘Largevolume’ 5 APRA Fund with agent Applies to any APRA fund who contracts with an administrator or other service partner ‘Basic’, ‘High-end’ or ‘Largevolume’ 6 SMSF Applies to any SMSF who choose to process prescribed transactions using their own IT resources. ‘Basic’ or ‘High-end’ 7 SMSF with agent Applies to any SMSF who contracts with an administrator or other service partner ‘Basic’ or ‘High-end’ 8 Gateway Applies only to entities registered to provide a gateway service on behalf of participating funds. ‘B 2 B Gateway’ 10
Governance & change Appendix A What happens as standards change internationally n The evolution of the UN/EDIFACT line of standards from EDI to ebms provides a clue as to how an industry can manage and respond to this change process over time n Industries tend to adopt standards at times of their own choosing – i. e. based on their need to get something done and using what is currently available (best practice) at the time n As the adoption decision takes hold, the standards choice begins to ‘stick’ and gain critical mass. The industry gradually tends to congeal around that standard. From this point, resistance steadily grows to jumping on new ‘paradigms’ that may emerge n This is understandable as well as making good economic sense: once a standard has been proven as workable and key players have adopted it, pressure grows to perfect its use and get a good long-term return on investment n From an adoption perspective, standards tend to be enforced either by: – – a major corporate player (eg. Walmart, Microsoft) who can dictate terms to its suppliers or clients in an industry regulatory dictate (eg SBR in Holland, E-filing in the US or Singapore) where a government can enforce a mandate n Effective governance therefore depends on the context in which the standard is being set and enforced – either the lead player or government can decide on the timing of change n In the Australian context, it is proposed to operate a type of ‘co-regulatory’ model 1 where the government will work with the superannuation industry in deciding how and when to make changes n As a general guide, the decision to adopt ebms 3. 0 as a messaging standard should be seen as a strategic decision which sets the scene for the next 10 -15 years of messaging development. Improvements should largely be confined to ‘perfecting the implementation of this standard’, unless a new paradigm 2 emerges which develops wide support and a compelling business case. So, the industry would stay with 3. 0 as long as it saw fit despite other versions appearing. 1. Governance of the standard is shared in part through the operation of the Super. Stream Advisory Council which is responsible for reviewing and recommending on all proposed changes to the standard. 2. An example of a potential catalyst for this type of change might be the ISO 20022 standard on electronic payments. If this matured to the point where messages might be bundled with payments, this might render elements of AS 4 redundant or requiring significant re-work. Part of the ‘do we change/do we stay’ question at that time will depend on the transition costs and commercial software options available at this time. 11 Page 11
Conformance Profiles Summary Super. Stream Reference AS 4 Profile Reference Entry Level n Ultra-light n Minimal Client n Basic n Minimal Client Advanced Level n High-end n Eb Handler (compression enabled) n Large-volume n Eb Handler (compression enabled/split-join)* B 2 B Gateway * digital signatures mandated gt-gt 12
Скачать презентацию Super Stream Data Standards E-Commerce B 2
c8b790e40090c9db7434625e0d7e9aa2.ppt