Date: 2018-03-19

Time: 11:00-12:00 CET

Type of meeting: conference call

Participants and absents

Chair

Hans Berg <hans.berg@tickstar.com> as eDelivery CC Leader

Elected members (with voting right)

Kristiansen, Olav Astad <Olav.AstadKristiansen@difi.no>

Oriol Bausà Peris <oriol@invinet.org>

Helger, Philip <philip.helger@brz.gv.at>

Sven Rostgaard Rasmussen <svrra@digst.dk>

Observers (without voting right)

Rapisarda Isabella <isabella.rapisarda@consip.it> as Pre-award CC Leader

Sören Pedersen <Soren.Pedersen@esv.se> as Post Award CC Leader

Agenda

1. Approval of agenda
2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting
3. Follow up on decisions and action items from previous meeting
4. TVR
5. Discuss actions needed for F2F/GA on March 20th/21st (agendas available on CC-F2F-Meetings Brussels March 20 2018 and 9th OpenPEPPOL General Assembly - Archive of Invitation and background documents)
6. Scheduled meetings:
1. April 13 March 30, 14.00-16.00 CET and every 2nd Friday 14.00-16.00 onwards.
2. ...
7. Any other Business

Topics not discussed

• Anything except Topic #4

Information items

1. Mail from Andre concerning "strategic impact" was distributed to the TICC CMB members: "Not respecting, and in practice abandoning,  these two cornerstones of how the PEPPOL eDelivery Network and exchange of PEPPOL BIS messages works, is a strategic decision that goes beyond what TICC has the formal competence to handle, and needs to be lifted for decision in the MC."
   1. Input from DIGST (Sven Rasmussen):

      1. As a response to the issues raised below from DIFI I have the below comments:

         1)      Introducing end-to-end message-encryptions makes it impossible for sending AP’s C2 to ensure message quality.

         2)      Even if it would be possible to “fix” message quality there still remains the requirement for Senders to request a response confirming receipt of the message – as an additional message following the protocol acknowledgement

         3)      Danish Government are required to send confirmation on receipt of Invoices and need a mechanism for senders to request this receipt (MLR)

         4)      The implementation of TVR is a compromise that should reduce the overhead on participants that want to leave the responsibilities to their AP provider – in this context the TVR/MLR is a technical implementation and should not be considered as a strategic issue.

         This interference in a consensus process is another example of unjustified interference from DIFI not respecting the overall requirements in PEPPOL, but focusing on Norwegian positions.

         
         

   2. Input from Austria (Philip Helger)
      1. The current error rate is 3.5% of all incoming messages (around 1 million per year)
      2. Currently message rejection because of validation errors happens synchronously in the AS2 MDN
   3. Input from dfo.no (Per Martin Joraholmen)
      1. "We are running with a 0.3% error rate" (from 10 million invoices a year)

Decisions

1. Topic #4
   
   1. Continue the work on the TVR (handle comments, create a new version of the TVR specs, prepare a e-mail response to André Hoddevik's e-mail).

Action items

1. Topic #4
   1. Respond to Andre's mail. Philip to prepare an initial statement.

-- EoD

Attachments