Skip to:

  1. Skip to Jira Navigation
  2. Skip to Side Navigation
  3. Skip to Main Content

Transport protocol of IM

Description

Comment by in Out of Scope section:

I think we should be explicit about that we either A) do not specify the transport protocol within the service access layer and assume that different implementations of the IM building block either have to use a mutually compatible protocol (like the X-Road transport protocol), B) that only one implementation of the IM building block can exist within one instance of GovStack, or C) that we define the transport protocol as a separate entity / standard that can allow for translation between multiple different transport protocols

Activity

Show:

Tonis PihlakasApril 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM
Edited

I think it’s okay for now to explicitly say that we don’t expect multiple IM implementations, but we need to think about a few scenarios:

  1. On a good day, if GovStack takes off and we have many IM implementations across the world, G2G federation and exchange of data would be a challenge. I suppose eDelivery standards (and friends) are trying to solve this across EU. We can have peripheral adapters between stacks, but that doesn’t scale linearly.

  2. On a bad day, a particular GovStack can’t take off, because there’s no agreement on one implementation within a single government / country context (B2G + C2G + G2G)

  3. On a worse day, we might get micro-GovStacks that talk to each other through a commonly shared protocol, but without the governance and transparency of a single IM context.

Aleksander ReitsakasApril 16, 2023 at 3:58 PM

My suggestion is B

Unresolved
Pinned fields
Click on the next to a field label to start pinning.

Details

Assignee

Reporter

Priority

Checklist

Created April 16, 2023 at 3:58 PM
Updated April 17, 2023 at 8:17 PM

Flag notifications