Transcript Slide 1

SuperStream: Data Standards & E-Commerce
B2B 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
Data and Payment Standards
Legislative Instrument
Explanatory Memo
Regulations
Explanatory Statement
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 & AS4 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 B2B 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
‘AS4’ ticks the boxes
The AS4 profile in ebms 3.0 meets nearly all SuperStream 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 AS4 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 A2 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
a
Splitting/joining of files
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
ebXML 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 B2B messaging
protocol. Cisco has adopted AS4 for its B2B 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 AS4 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 B2B
problem
Retail industry
Led by the huge Walmart supply chain implementations,
retail is a very large user of AS2. The AS4 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 B2B interactions due to the ease of use, and
ubiquitous availability of tools and skills. W3C has developed several
standards such as SOAP, SwA, MTOM, WS-Security, WS Reliability,
and WSReliableMessaging to enable the necessary quality of service
required to support business transactions over web services…
Cisco choose AS4 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 AS4.
CISCO, White Paper, Web Services External (WS-X)
An AS4 Implementation at Cisco, 2010
7
Messaging Services
AS4 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
ebMS2
Message Packaging
SWA
MTOM
Reliable Delivery
Synchronous Response
“AS2” Receipts (inc NRR)
Sequences (WS-Reliability)
Authentication
Username/Password
X509
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
ebMS3
Alternate features
Other possible features
8
Ebms/AS4 evalution
Summary of pros and cons
Pros
Cons
 Is a fully documented international standard (ISO) with
high level of maturity and wide industry adoption
 Has a long and well credentialed pedigree back to the
days of EDI/AS2
 Has high credibility having been eveloped by big names
in IT world including Cisco, Fujitsu and IBM
 Utilise web services based messaging built around the
XML language – meets SBR aspiration
 Implementations are increasingly supported by vendor
and open source products in the market – not all yet at
3.0 level
 Release of the AS4 profile in conjunction with ebms 3.0
introduced significant flexibility into implementation of
the standard – enabling ‘light weight’ implementation
and ‘just enough’ design concepts
 Independent testing and certification resources support
the standard
 Ticks nearly all the boxes needed by SuperStream to
resolve e-commerce protocols issues
 AS4 is not yet fully supported by wide range of vendor
and open source products
 The standard represents a new learning curve for the
industry, but many parts are already familiar
 International standards change and evolve over time
which will require governance decisions and responses
at Australia SBR/SuperStream level
 SBR Program Board has not yet endorsed evolution of
SBR in this direction
 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.
‘B2B Gateway’
10
Governance & change
Appendix A
What happens as standards change internationally

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the Australian context, it is proposed to operate a type of ‘co-regulatory’ model1 where the government will work with
the superannuation industry in deciding how and when to make changes

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 SuperStream 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 ISO20022 standard on electronic payments. If this matured to the point where messages might be bundled
with payments, this might render elements of AS4 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
SuperStream Reference
AS4 Profile Reference
Entry Level

Ultra-light

Minimal Client

Basic

Minimal Client
Advanced Level

High-end

Eb Handler (compression enabled)

Large-volume

Eb Handler (compression enabled/split-join)

Eb Handler (compression enabled/split-join)*
B2B Gateway
* digital signatures mandated gt-gt
12