PEPPOL Architecture Overview - Apr. 2009

50 %
50 %
Information about PEPPOL Architecture Overview - Apr. 2009
Technology

Published on May 16, 2009

Author: hippebrun

Source: slideshare.net

Description

PEPPOL architecture overview presentet on April 14th 2009 in Copenhagen.

PEPPOL Architecture overview Mikkel Hippe Brun Technical Director @ PEPPOL Chief Consultant Danish National IT and Telecom Agency How to connect workshop Copenhagen April 14th 2009

Contents Goals and vision The “AS-IS” situation Peer-2-peer, Three/Four-corner-models Business roles and requirements Initial profiles Full profile Queued profile Lightweight profile

WP8 goals Solutions architecture – design and validation – will focus on design and validation of the common specifications and building blocks which together will define the technical interoperability layer required to provide an operational e-business infrastructure.

WP8 vision Pan European exchange of business documents between any private company and any EU governmental institution should be as easy as sending emails.

WP - Outcomes An architecture – A federated, secure and reliable infrastructure for electronic document transport. Specifications – Based on internationally recognized open standards – For secure and reliable transport of electronic documents. Software – Dual license (EUPL and MPL 1.1 where applicable) – Lowering barriers for implementers – Provides reference implementations – Demonstrates “that it is easy”

Expected benefits Easy to exchange business documents Easy to use the PEPPOL infrastructure Easy for… – Service providers • e.g. banks • e.g. Value Added Networks • e.g. E-procurement Platform Providers – Public sector institutions – Large companies – SME's

The ”As-is-situation” Several solutions to the same problem National / Regional / Local / Sector specific / Public / Private Much variance complexity and design Peer-2-peer Three-corner-models Four corner-models Web-based or based on machine-2-machine interaction Many different business models

The peer-2-peer-model Characteristics (simplified) Agreed upon standards for transport open or proprietary Perhaps - agreed upon standards for content Difficult to match business requirements

The three-corner-model Characteristics (simplified) Proprietary standards (whole stack) Service provider lock-in / Limited competition Customers may have to connect to more than one service provider

The four-corner-model Characteristics (simplified) Agreed upon standards for transport open or proprietary Perhaps - agreed upon standards for content Freedom to choose service provider

High level view

Roles / Actors We identified 3 distinct roles (with respect to transports) – Service Provider (SP) • An existing e-business network provider with legacy customers – e.g. banks – e.g. Value Added Networks – e.g. E-procurement Platform Providers • Service Providers may in addition offer a standardized lightweight access to their customers – A new role that may be played by existing VANs, Government agencies or private sector initiatives – Supports (C) using PEPPOL specific interfaces – Large company or government agency – with hosted services (LC) • A company that is willing to install and maintain a gateway with endpoints available 24x7 – Company or government agency without hosted services (C) • A company (of any size) that is not able or interested in connecting directly to PEPPOL

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry   

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc)

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc) Low cost per msg   

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc) Low cost per msg    Technology comfort zone   

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc) Low cost per msg    Technology comfort zone    Reliability   

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc) Low cost per msg    Technology comfort zone    Reliability    Integrity   

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc) Low cost per msg    Technology comfort zone    Reliability    Integrity    Transport-level non-repudiation   

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc) Low cost per msg    Technology comfort zone    Reliability    Integrity    Transport-level non-repudiation    Privacy   

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc) Low cost per msg    Technology comfort zone    Reliability    Integrity    Transport-level non-repudiation    Privacy    Trust   

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc) Low cost per msg    Technology comfort zone    Reliability    Integrity    Transport-level non-repudiation    Privacy    Trust    Avg. latency lower than 5 min.   + (tender?)

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc) Low cost per msg    Technology comfort zone    Reliability    Integrity    Transport-level non-repudiation    Privacy    Trust    Avg. latency lower than 5 min.   + (tender?) High volume   

Business Requirements Business concern Service provider Large Organization Company Low cost of entry    Other cost of entry    (e.g.complexity, contractual, etc) Low cost per msg    Technology comfort zone    Reliability    Integrity    Transport-level non-repudiation    Privacy    Trust    Avg. latency lower than 5 min.   + (tender?) High volume   

Architectural goals Secure and reliable Realizable with internet technologies Federated and scalable Lower barriers Leverage investments in existing infrastructures Allow existing business models to co-exist

A four-corner-model is needed because… The requirements differs a lot between service providers and SME’s Trust requirement raises the barrier The technical solution requires a trusted third party Also the “low latency” and “availability” requirements raises the barrier Requires hosted service with good SLA Conclusion: No single transport profile matches all the requirements. The four-corner-model caters for this inherent problem.

Basically a four corner model

However…. All access points must meet a number of requirements: Sign roaming agreement Meet SLA requirements Certificate listed in TSL Have full transport interoperability Every access points are treated equally Business model not considered Anyone meeting requirements can become an Access Point

Direct connection possible

Roles and transports SP (e.g. Bank) Company Company SP SP Key Company Large Company or government agency PEPPOL full profile PEPPOL queued profile PEPPOL lightweight profile Out of Scope / Legacy protocol

Initial thinking on transport profiles • Full profile – High fidelity, guaranteed secure delivery of messages from Access Point to Access Point – Based on open standards such as WS-* – The only “required” profile • Queued profile – High fidelity, guaranteed secure delivery of messages from Access Point to Access Point using a message queuing model – An optional profile to enable efficient delivery of high volume between two VANs • Lightweight profile – A simple low cost profile that enables a disconnected company to access stored messages via a PEPPOL Service Provider – Analogous to using SMTP Relay and POP3/IMAP

Roles and Transports PUT SP PUT (e.g. Bank) Company PUT Company PUT PUT PUT SP GET PUT PSP PUT Company Key PEPPOL full profile Large PEPPOL queued profile Company or PEPPOL lightweight profile government Out of Scope / Legacy protocol agency

Message exchange in PEPPOL • The main questions are: – Who, where, why, how? Why should I trust? Trust How do I transport my document? Sender Receiver How do I advertise Who can I reach? Registry my capabilities? Where can I send my document?

Scenario – CA based trust

Scenario – TLS based trust PEPPOL infra- structure sphere Existing Existing infra- infrastructure structure sphere sphere PEPPOL infrastructure sphere Govt. Message + agency SAML token Access SME 1 Trust Point 4 Trust Get VAN lookup token Trusted 3rd party Access Service STS Point 1 List Message + SAML token Large company PUT Access PEPPOL Point 3 Large Relay company Service SME 2 Access Point 2 Portal SME 5 SME 4 SME 3

Scenario – STS based trust

Scenario 1: Basic send Send to Country A company C – • how??Key: CompanyC Invoice • Doc: Invoice • Profile: Peppol PEDRI • Country: B Registry Endpoint: Operator • Access point 2 1 Company B • http://ap2.de/ Company A PEDRI This is the area that Access point, PEDRI adresses VAN 1 Transport properties • Secure • Reliable Profile properties • Transport + QoS Country B Access point 2, Operator 2 WS-* over internet AMQP / Operator WS-* over 2 Company C Public internet agency D Other options..

Decentralized registry infrastructure • 2 central questions: – Which registry has information on the recipient? – Where can I find the recipient? Registry Which registry? locator service Sender Register Service Which endpoint? registry • These questions can be answered through many different strategies

Registry overview Top level registry Lookup Sender Point to Point to Register & manage 2nd level registry A 2nd level registry B Operator A Operator B Register Replicated registries Recipient Lookup Receive payload Sender Transport layer Send payload - Open standards - Secure & reliable transport Recipient Sender endpoint entry point

Scenario II: Multiple operators Send to Agency D – how?? Country A Invoice • Key: Agency D PEDRI Registry: Registry • Registry C Operator Registry A Endpoint: • http://reg.c.de/Key: Agency D • 1 Company B • Access point 2 • Doc: Invoice Company A • http://ap2.de/ • Profile: Peppol Access point, PEDRI VAN 1 Transport properties Registry B • Secure • Reliable Access point, Profile properties Registry C national • Transport + QoS Country B Access point 2, Operator 2 Operator 2 Company C Public agency D Access point 3, Operator 3 Company E Operator 3 Company F

Scenario V – Lightweight Profile Country A PEDRI Top-level • Key: Company H Registry Operator 1 Company B Registry: Company A • Registry C • http://reg.c.de/ Access point, PEDRI VAN 1 Transport properties • WS-* based Endpoint: Country B • Company H Access point 2, PUT Access point 4 • http://compH.de/ Operator 2 (PEPPOL service provider) • PGP key Operator 2 Invoice Company C Public Send to agency D company H – how?? •Bus. key: Company H Company G Company E • Doc: Invoice Operator • Profile: Peppol Registry C 3 Company F GET Company H Register with: • Bus. key: Company H • Doc: Invoice • Profile: Peppol Access point 5 (PEPPOL service provider)

Fees for using PEPPOL infrastructure? There is no fee associated with sending and receiving messages between PEPPOL Access Point There may be fees to: – Have an entry listed in a registry – Use an STS / Certificate Validation Service However.. Service providers choose their own business model

Roadmap for PEPPOL Infrastructure May 2009 – April 2010 : Construction – May – Hands on workshop for developers – October – New release – January - PEPPOL 2010 – February – New release – May 1st – Production May 2010 – April 2011 : Pilot – Workshops – Standardization – Aid to pilots – Patches

Summary PEPPOL offers: A pan European registry architecture – Business entities, Business processes, Business documents, Transport, Security information A trust model Certificate validation Secure and reliable transport Specifications Reference implementations A governance model

http://www.peppol.eu http://www.peppolinfrastructure.com – WP8 Solution architecture – technical stuff

Add a comment

Related presentations

Presentación que realice en el Evento Nacional de Gobierno Abierto, realizado los ...

In this presentation we will describe our experience developing with a highly dyna...

Presentation to the LITA Forum 7th November 2014 Albuquerque, NM

Un recorrido por los cambios que nos generará el wearabletech en el futuro

Um paralelo entre as novidades & mercado em Wearable Computing e Tecnologias Assis...

Microsoft finally joins the smartwatch and fitness tracker game by introducing the...

Related pages

Peppol | LinkedIn

View 91 Peppol posts, presentations, experts, and more. Get the professional knowledge you need on LinkedIn. LinkedIn Home What is LinkedIn? Join Today
Read more

Server and Site Architecture: Object Model Overview ...

Server and Site Architecture: Object Model Overview ... 8 Apr 2009 1 :03 PM ... diagram-full MSDN link of Server and Site Architecture with ...
Read more

Developing with Commerce Server 2009

Architects. Overview; Case studies; Blueprints; Blog; Forums; ISV; Startups; TechRewards; Events; Community. Magazine; ... Development Developing with ...
Read more

Intel Core (microarchitecture) - Wikipedia, the free ...

Architecture: Intel Core x86: Instructions: MMX: Extensions: ... Apr 2007: 143 mm ... In 2009, a new stepping G2 ...
Read more

Department of Defense Architecture Framework - Wikipedia ...

The Department of Defense Architecture Framework ... Overview The DoDAF provides a ... 2009; DoDAF section of Architecture Framework Forum Information ...
Read more

Automotive Industry Overview - Worldwide | Nielsen

Automotive Industry Overview April 2009 Edition ... 2/15/2009 COMPOSITE BAQ RANKING. Price & Value Drive ... Nielsen Online Automotive Overview - Apr 2009.ppt
Read more

cpuapr2009.html - Oracle | Integrated Cloud Applications ...

Enterprise Architecture. ... For an overview of the Oracle product documentation related to this Critical Patch ... No security fixes for CPU Apr 2009.
Read more

Architecture

The first one is on Philip Johnson's heritage. While introducing the world's changing trends in architecture to USA, ...
Read more

Revit User's Manual - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

Revit User's Manual. ... Revit Architecture Overview; ... Revit MEP Overview; Revit VSTA Macros. Revit 2009 now includes VSTA for creating macros.
Read more