Page Comparison

Will we be informed when Babelway is ready and when we can start testing ?

Will we get an update on the interface spec?

Yes. BOSA will keep using the BE AP forum page to publish updates in the documentation and project progress, and members will be informed by email. An update will be  published soon. This update closes the design phase: the specifications are considered stable enough to move to development.

Do sender and AP need to sign agreement or is one enough?

The SP needs to sign the integrator’s agreement. The sender needs to sign the sender’s agreement. However, to accommodate the SP’s processes, the formalism is up to the AP, as long as it can be audited that the sender has indeed formally agreed the convention. It does not necessarily need to be a “good old written signature on paper”, but it must be opposable and auditable.

The agreement should be signed with all the Service Providers in Peppol, not only with Belgian ones, isn't it?

The Belgian restriction applies to senders and receivers, not to SPs. At this stage the convention is only available in the official Belgian languages but foreign APs operating in Belgium can sign it.

Was the Hermes proposed process submitted to approval of OpenPEPPOL ?

Of course OpenPeppol is informed in detail about the Hermes project. 

The receivers are then in Peppol, and reachable from Peppol everywhere.  Michel's point on mixing the reliable Peppol delivery with the mail is really relevant. 

It is not only about what is relevant, but also about what is the most relevant. Indeed emails are less reliable but today the sender has no choice anyway. By reconciling both models (as much as possible), we expect to  boost the uptake of end-to-end e-invoicing, opening a boulevard for the industry. The risk of losing a few invoices in the process, a risk which exists today anyway, is really minor compared to the benefits.

Why does the HermeSmp not  register all the Belgian entities with a customized version of the bis3 invoice that has a mandatory email address? This would resolve the issue of enforcing it no?

As answered by another forum participant, BIS is mandatory. Hence, even if you register the Hermes receiver with this customized format they still have to receive the BIS V3. See also  Hermes - ...- clarification, point “email address”

If there is a change in the behaviour of PEPPOL, my understanding is that it should be approved by the impacted parties. As an AP, I request this to be put to a formal approval

There is no such change

I support Michel that having a standard and efficient way to differentiate receivers in Peppol lookup/directory that are reachable via BIS3 via Peppol to pdf via email delivery from the standard einvoice receivers in Peppol. I do not understand. This needs to be re-phrased.  This maybe achieved by a national process/profile etc.

It is very easy to differentiate a Hermes receiver from others: the Hermes receivers are not published on Peppol Directory. In other words, any Belgian enterprise (identified by his enterprise number) that is not on the Peppol Directory, is a Hermes receiver.
Another way to look up this information, that is cleaner from a technical perspective (but may be harder for a lambda user), is to query hsmp directly.