Belgian Peppol Service Providers Forum – 40th plenary meeting – online – 12/05/2026, 13:30-15:00 CET – Preparatory document

Open

Agenda

Doors opening – welcome – virtual coffee

From 13:20 to 13:30.

Housekeeping

1. This meeting is recorded. By attending it you agree with the recording.

2. Admission
   Admission to the meeting is subject to preliminary registration.

   • Notification of opening of registration timeframe is sent by email to all Forum participants representatives

   • Only registered participants are admitted to the meeting.

3. Evolution of Forum membership

   1. New members: /

   2. Resignations: NEO Company, ILGE.

4. Roles:

   1. Service Providers: subject matter experts and main contributors

   2. BPA: Government facilitator

5. Chair:
   Proposed: Serge Libert (BOSA)

6. Minutes taker
   Proposed: Davut Yildirim (BOSA)

7. Approval of the agenda
   Proposed: approve the agenda

8. Approval of minutes of previous meeting published on Belgian Peppol SP Forum main page.
   No comments received so far.
   Proposed: approve the minutes

9. Review of action items of previous meeting

I. SMP Redirect - registration interface standardization

Topic owner:

Leentje De Brouwer (Nymus)

Focus group members:

Abacis, Arco, Billit, eConnect, e-invoice, Helger, GHX Europe, Scrada, TradeInterop(4CEE) , Wolters Kluwer

Background:

Due to the Belgian mandate, many end-users (at least 50k) will rely on 2 distinct operators – one for outbound invoicing and one for inbound invoicing – cf presentation in Plenary 35. In order to provide them response service for outbound invoicing, the only option currently available is SMP redirect. However this currently requires manual config on both sides, which does not fit the scale of the need. The focus group is working on an API to enable automation of SMP redirect Registration. An initial draft spec is available. Next phase is to have a POC to validate it.

Report back to plenary:

• Even after successful completion of the 1/1/26 milestone, the perception remains that limited resources are available for the next phase (POC) initiation

• In the meantime Critical Infrastructure Work Group (CIWG) has a Workstream (4) active on this topic (and other related topics) – see AOB, “CIWG 2.0 report back”. This might offer an alternative to the problem faced (support of end users using multiple operators). However there is no clear direction yet and no implementation schedule.

• In order to objectivize the perception mentioned above, the Focus group leader proposes to take a survey of the forum. Based on the results, the plan will be adapted.

• Link to survey: https://forms.cloud.microsoft/e/vWc8PWKqJF

II. Network Quality

Topic owner:

Leentje De Brouwer (Nymus)

==

Composition

• Plenary 39 - action items - debrief

• Peppol Network Data Scanner (Serge / Bart)

• Transmission Errors (PeppolEdge – Mathieu Pasture)

• SPF4Peppol (Sender Policy Framework) (Tigron – Gerry Demaret)

==

Plenary 39 – Action items – Debrief

Participation to new focus groups:

• "SPF4Peppol" (Sender Policy Framework)“: see Focus Group report back

• "Transmission Errors" : see Focus Group report back

==

BPA: Peppol Network Data Scanner

Topic owner:

BOSA (Serge / Bart)

Background:

In the context of the B2B mandate there were questions about the quality of the network data. BPA (with support of FPS Finance and OO) has set up a Belgian Peppol network data scanner, to increase the quality of the network data. This is an MVP, not a final product. The final product could/should be developed at global level (for the whole network, not only Belgium).

Report Back to Plenary

Below you find an update of the outcomes of the scanning of the network data for the Belgian segment of the Peppol network.

*: malformed IDs details reveal a lot of dummy IDs, possibly test IDs in production.

this impairs network data quality. If such IDs derive from a real business need, there should be a way to “tag” them as test data – eg using a schemeID “test”?

**: BIS check was performed since the start, but somehow not reported here.

Conclusions:

• the scan has been effective up to now.

• the majority of operators is happy with the feedback that the scan provides them

• the residual error rate is satisfying.

Proposals to Plenary:

• move our focus towards scanner globalisation: support rfc Peppol-20448 reproduced in annex 1 – exact approach to be defined. Call for candidates to advise BOSA on this matter.

• keep Belgian Pilot operational. Reassess at next plenary

==

Transmission Errors

Topic owner:

PeppolEdge (Mathieu)

Background:

Currently there is a presumption of excessive error rate in transmission*, leading to a lot of frustration from end-users, a lot of support from all operators involved, and eventually a risk that could become systemic if nothing is done.

*: Transmission error = a document that shouldn’t have been sent because it violates the rules and specification

PeppolEdge resents a pragmatic flash action to help each other eradicate transmission errors fast and efficiently. BOSA supports the proposal and is OK to act as intermediate between operators.

Outcome Action Point previous Plenary meeting:

In addition to PeppolEdge, following members joined the Focus group: BOSA, Billit, Dokapi, Digiteal, Horus, Tradeshift.

Report Back to Plenary:

The flash action revealed that there was no huge problem with transmission errors. There is also no clear set of error patterns. Furthermore, analysis over one month shows that the most errors get fixed over short time.

The focus group concludes that the “best” approach is that receiving operators report transmission errors to sending operators.

This is supported by standard Peppol governance, in particular the compliance procedure, which provides that:

• the first stage of a compliance issue is to raise it with the parties concerned;

• the Service Level Requirement (SLR) for response time to such communication between operators is one day (see also the minutes of Plenary Meeting 39); and

• if this stage is ineffective, the operator concerned should report the case to the Peppol Authority with which it has signed its agreement.

==

SPF4Peppol (Sender Policy Framework)

Topic owner:

TIGRON/SATISA (Gerry/Steven)

Background:

Peppol is already a secure network. It could be even safer by implementing a mechanism that is common in the eMail context: Sender Policy Framework (SPF), by which the receiving side can check if the document received was sent by an operator that is approved by the sender himself.

Outcome Action Point Previous Plenary meeting:

Will be given during the plenary.

Report Back to Plenary:

Tigron doing an internal pilot. Pull request to PHOSS SMP to get merged soon. Target = get a working proof of concept by end of April. A more complete report back will be given during the plenary.

III. Multiple Receivers Under 1 CBE

Topic Owner:

Exact (Remko)

Background:

this long-open topic relates to the scenario where one single legal entity, identified by their legal identifier (enterprise number, schemeID 0208), needs the inbound invoices to be routed to multiple systems in function of their nature (for instance, different schools with their own accounting while they belong to one single legal entity (being the “pouvoir organisateur”).

Report Back to Plenary:

Remko confirms that the mandatory use by each Belgian enterprise of their legal identifier (schemeID 0208) as primary ID on the peppol network, and the option to use additional identifiers as they see fit, under their own responsibility and cost, and as long as it does not interfere with the Primary ID, resolves the issue of multiple identifiers. Remko will propose to close the Focus group with this conclusion on next plenary meeting.

Proposal to plenary:

to close the topic.

IV. Add Control on VAT Nr

Topic Owner:

Wolters Kluwer (Paul)

Other Focus group participants:

Billit (Dirk); CW Logistics (Tom)

Background:

In order to prepare for e-Reporting Paul proposes to add a control on the VAT number in the Peppol schematrons. This will reduce the risk of error in the e-reporting flow.

Report back to Plenary:

A high-level document prepared by focus group and discussed with FINANCE is available in annex 2. It will be presented to discuss, capture immediate feedback and agree on the feedback collection method.

V. Self-Billing

Topic Owner:

FPS Finance (Wouter Bollaert)

Other Focus Group participants:

Billit, Wolters Kluwer

Background:

Self-Billing is a new specification on the Peppol network, introduced in the context of the Belgian mandate. As any new specification, in order to ensure that it is consistently used and does not cause friction with BIS BILLING, specific action may be required in terms of communication, clarification, coordination, governance and/or at technical level.

Report Back to Plenary:

The group broke the topic down into 4 issues:

1 - Lack of awareness that the supplier must register to receive self-bills
2 - Lack of awareness that a bilateral agreement remains necessary
3 - Status reports for self-billing are reportedly not possible
4 - End-user software does not yet support self-billing (to create or process)

Issues 1 and 2 require communication with end-users representatives, via the Business Experts Group (BEG).

Issue 3 is handled through an RFC – Dirk initiated it – see annex 3.

Issue 4 is handled through various channels: (1°) call at next SP forum (2°) broadcast to end-user tools notified on website e-invoice.belgium.be; (3°) call at the BEG.

VI. Factoring

Topic Owner:

Factris (Jarn Vinders).

Composition

• Factoring Scenario (Factris)

• Agent Scenario (IMA)

• Accountant Scenario (Digiteal)

Other Focus group members:

Digiteal, IMA, Wolters Kluwer, Dokapi, Peppol Edge, eConnect, NPa, Scrada, Exact

Background:

on plenary 38 Jarn highlighted the issue with Factoring on Peppol Network. As stated in the wrap up, plenary 38 decided to set-up a focus group to elaborate on the issue. In parallel several distinct but comparable problematic business scenarios were identified, involving third parties (ie not limited to the main scenario in which the final invoice is transmitted from the supplier to the customer).

Report Back to Plenary:

A meeting between OO (Erwin, Klaus) and the Focus Group representatives (Jarn, Paul) was initiated by Mathieu and took place. The main conclusion was that the Focus Group needs to deliver a more detailed and structured description of the RFC, including at least the associated choreographies. Alignment with e‑reporting should also be considered

Klaus sent an model of a document including choreography information, with some draft information for the factoring scenario.

Paul added more variants and more information.

The resulting material will then be further elaborated and validated within the Factoring++ Focus Group.

A joint meeting with Focus group members and OO is scheduled on 20/5.

It is also possible that the work will be split into smaller parts if it is confirmed that the current scope is too broad and a source of confusion.

No clear timeline has been defined yet. This will be followed up during the upcoming leaders’ meeting.

We are still investigating the impact on reporting. At first glance, invoices sent by the factoring company appear to be problematic within the five‑corner model, but further analysis is required.

VII. Track focus group progress (new)

Topic Owner:

BOSA (Serge)

Other focus group members:

all owners of Topics being discussed in the Belgian Service Providers forum.

Background and Summary

In order to ensure better follow up, better coordination and better decision-making in the forum, BPA established a recurrent meeting with all focus group leaders, named “Focus Group Leaders Meeting”.

Attendance to the meeting is flexible. In combination with the recurrence, it strives to offer good balance between needs of the focus groups and other competing engagements of the participants. It is also possible to delegate attendance to other focus group members.

The model also helps to make sur each plenary is well prepared.

All documents are public, and the organisation is similar to the Plenary meeting (briefing/debriefing). see Focus Group Leaders meetings .

It was the first iteration. Ideally information is provided in advance so we can really focus on discussion. But we are not there yet. During the next cycle (between plenary 40 and 41) we will adapt frequency to every 3 weeks.

VIII. ISO Certification

Topic Owner:

DARING Systems (David)

Background:

ISO certification is in the backlog of the SP Forum for several years due to lack of progress in the area . OpenPeppol MC decided to move on with ISO 27001 certification program. The decision provides that all Peppol SPs will have to be ISO 27001-certified by 1/7/2027. This decision is the opportunity to reactivate this topic. In a first stage, DARING systems proposes to introduce the certification process. In a later stage the forum could create a focus group to address common aspects of this new challenge.

Additional preparation material: ISO27001 Implementation plan (RC1) (review request published 07/05/2026)

Backlog / AOB / Next forum

Backlog:

Any Other Business

• CIWG 2.0

• GA19 Retrospect

• MLS implementation - new phase

CIWG 2.0

Topic owner:

BOSA (François)

Other members:

Bart Devos, Steven Noels

Background:

BOSA decided to contribute to the CIWG2.0. By contributing we also follow up the progress and can report back to the forum if and as appropriate.

The team includes François, Bart and Steven (external contributor).

WS3 trust and security

Will start this week (week of 11^th of May)

WS4 Discovery and Routing

Intense discussions are taking place but the consensus is that SMP redirect and NAPTR lookups are quite complementary than excluding each other. As the NAPTR implementation could take years before it is part of the standard, SMP redirects will still be used by the countries that use it (Belgium). As for the API for automating the changes in the SMP’s, a survey will be launched in Belgium if automation is required. For the moment, ad hoc processes is used to bring changes to SMP’s.

GA 19 Retrospect

Topic Owner:

BOSA (Serge)