Technical Working Group (TWG)
Outcomes
/ UNclAssifiedExternalFile ref:TWG20170525
Title: / Software Developer Technical Working Group (SwD TWG)
out of session TWG supporting Single Touch Payroll (STP)
Issue date: / 26 May 2017
Venue: / and dial-in 1800 888 453
Event date: / 25 May 2017 / Start:14:00 AEST / Finish:15:15
Co-Chairs: / Brian Hughes (ATO)
Anthony Migliardi (Xero) / Facilitator: / Brian Hughes
Secretariat / Samantha Chudzinski / Contact: /
Attendees: / Industry:{alphabetically by company}.
Andrew D Smith (MYOB), Deanne Windsor (Pendragon/ABSIA),
Matthew Addison (ICB), Martin Etherington (Xero),
ATO: {alphabetically by first name}.
Brendan Kee, Brian Hughes, Chris Thorne, Gary Anderson,Gerardine Burke, Kim McConaghy, Michael Connelly, Michael Karavas, Sam Boulad, Samantha Chudzinski, Vitaly Sidorenko,
Apologies: / Industry: {alphabetically by company}.
Name (Company), Name (Company), Name (Company),
ATO:{alphabetically by first name}.
Mick Ferris,
Next meeting / 8 June 2017
Key Outcomes from this meeting:
- Proposed by ATO that each party involved in the transmission of message will request authentication (e.g. an AUSkey SAML token) and provide that information in the HTTP header ( in addition to other requirements)
- Decision to return two options for message validation failures to the STP Design Working Group (DWG) for discussion
- Message queueing solutions (in the event of system failures) needs further consideration
Actions from this meeting:
ACTION: Digital Service Providers to provide feedback to on the TA210 STP Authentication and Authorisation proposal
ACTION: ATO(Sam Boulad) to make the ABSIA submission available with the meeting’s other artefacts (available on SIPO as: Software Developer Networks for SBR 0.4 Draft)
ACTION: ATO (Michael Karavas) to facilitate discussion at the STP-DWG of the technical options for W2 Pay Event records which fail validation, and the technical preference to reject the entire message, and provide feedback to provide feedback to
ACTION: ATO (Geradine Burke) to develop a simple view of the handling of failed messages for tabling at the schema view of failed messages, for use by discussion at the STP-DWG
ACTION: ATO (Michael Karavas) to provide a paper on message order prioritisation (following outages) to for a future TWG discussion
ACTION: ATO (Brian Hughes) to clarify with Joe Maxymenko and ABSIA and report at next TWG
ACTION: ATO (OBT account managers) and DSPs to provide feedback through account managers, on expected takeup of the 01JULY2017 Pay-event service for early adopters.
ACTION: ATO (Kim McConaghy) to confirm timing of availability to PSARS version 4 in the flat file and in SBR1) - (Xero query)
ACTION: ATO (Geradine Burke) and MYOB (Andrew Smith) to resolve some matters off-line in regard to clarity over some elements of the schema; validations
ACTION: ATO (Geradine Burke) to confirm how NIL-able elements will be handled (MYOB query)
Agenda item: 1 – Welcome and introductionsChris Thorne outlined the purpose of this STP focused TWG as:
- Focussed on STP solution for 1/7/2018. Implementation plan to be determined when the solution is agreed.
- Intent to identify and re-use existing technical solutions where possible
Agenda item: 2 – Previous outcomes and action items
Outcomes of the previous meeting were accepted as correct without comment.
Action items register and issues registerwereaccepted as correct without comment.
There were no updates to the actions or issues.
Agenda item: 3 – Authentication and Authorisation including encryption
Sam Boulad lead a discussion and referred to:
a paper provided for the meeting: TA2110 STP Authentication and Authorisation
a previous ABSIA submission: “ Software Developer Networks for SBR”
Outcomes were
• Proposed by ATO that each party involved in the transmission of message will request authentication (e.g. an AUSkey SAML token) and provide that information in the HTTP header ( in addition to other requirements)
The reason was noted that not all message payload will contain XBRL security sections
Digital Service Providers raised concerns about:
• how to handle if the previous step was paper instructions?
ACTION: Digital Service Providers to provide feedback to on the “TA2110 STP Authentication and Authorisation proposal”
ACTION: ATO (Sam Boulad) to make the ABSIA submission available with the meeting’s other artefacts
Agenda item: 4 – Message processing pattern – Bulk Vs Batch
Vitaly Sidorenko lead a discussion on a paper . .
TA210 Error Handling Options for STP Payroll Events
It was noted that this would not impact the business (pay-run) i.e. requiring payrolls to be re-run, issue is with only the message transmision.
It was presented that the technical handling for validation failures would follow the normal ATO default – i.e. Reject the entire message (W1 and W2 submissions)
An alternate (option 2) would be accept valid W2 messages and reject/report back to the submitting software the failed W2 messages for resubmission if necessary.
Digital Service Providers raised concerns about:
• Option one, causing potential delay in employees seeing valid transactions.
• Option two causing reconciliation issues between W1 and W2 (parent/child)
Outcomes were
• Decision to return two options for message validation failures to the STP Design Working Group (DWG) for discussion
ACTION: ATO (Michael Karavas) to facilitate discussion at the STP-DWG of the technical options for W2 Pay Event records which fail validation, and the technical preference to reject the entire message, and provide feedback to provide feedback to
ACTION: ATO (Geradine Burke) to develop a simple view of the handling of failed messages for tabling at the schema view of failed messages, for use by discussion at the STP-DWG
Agenda item: 5 – Payroll Event and Update Event Interaction
Michael C apologised that this issue was not yet ready to discuss as it relies on similar discussion as the message error handling in Agenda Item 4
Outcomes were
• This item to be carried over to the next TWG
Agenda item: 6 – Queuing solution for STP services
Brian Hughes noted that this was pre-notice of a discussion for the next TWG meeting.
The purpose is to discuss where and how to queue messages in the event of system failures.
ATO noted that there would be circumstances where DSPs would need to hold/stockpile messages and send through when systems become available.
ATO noted a need to identify priorities of message types to process following any outages
Digital Service Providersexpressed views that:
• ATO would also need to have a means to queue messages sent until ATO processing is available.
• The STP design group had already done some work on message priorities.
Outcomes were
• Mechanisms not resolved – need for future discussion and decision
ACTION: ATO (Michael Karavas) to provide a paper on message order prioritisation (following outages) to for a future TWG discussion
Agenda item: 7 – SBR XBRL approach to ATO architecture
Brian Hughes noted that this related to a matter that had been previously raised by ABSIA, but details were unclear, needing input from Joe Maxymenko.
ACTION: ATO (Brian Hughes) to clarify with Joe Maxymenko and ABSIA and report at next TWG
Agenda item: 8 – Implementation Update
Kim McConaghy lead a discussion on the release schedule for deployments to EVTE and to productionand referred to:
- SwD TWG Implementation update 27 April 2017 (DOCX)
- Release on a Page STP R2 22 May v1.3 (PDF)
ACTION: ATO (OBT account managers) and DSPs to provide feedback through account managers, on expected takeup of the 01JULY2017 Pay-event service for early adopters.
Some general technical issues were confirmed:
- System identifiers will be extended to 200 characters
• Availability of the PSARS “flat file” version having the version 4 capability ( only available so far in SBR2)
ACTION: ATO (Kim McConaghy) to confirm timing of availability to PSARS version 4 in the flat file and in SBR1) - (Xero query)
ACTION: ATO (Geradine Burke) and MYOB (Andrew Smith) to resolve some matters off-line in regard to clarity over some elements of the schema; validations
ACTION: ATO (Geradine Burke) to confirm how NIL-able elements will be handled (MYOB query)
Agenda item: 9 – Removing the TFN from the Response
Brendan Kee lead a discussion and referred to a position paper:
Echo of identifiers and TFN in XMLJSON responses_v0.3
ATO is looking as some sensitive security related information in some messages and whether the TFN is needed.
Examples are: Account list, transaction list, client update, updating deferral, submitting payment plans, BAS role services.
DSPs were asked - What is the internal impact of removing this from XML and JSON services?
Consensus was it is different for Batch/Single
• BATCH vs SINGLE
- Batch – probably still needed
- Single client – could be removed as long asan “agent” reference” can be returned by ATO services. (e.g. it’s already done with Individual returns)
Agenda item: 10 – Other Business
Brian Hughes asked whether monthly meetings were still desired by DSPs, especially at this time of year?
Consensus was that meetings were required if there were matters to discuss, and that information channels should be used to provide additional information
Close
The next meeting will be held on Thursday 8 June 2017.
Notes:
Publications from TWG meetings are available at:
ATO publicises the TWG meetings to subscribers of SIPO news services but does not send out calendar invites for the TWG’s to DSPs but d
Please consult the Software developers homepage for TWG dates and supporting documentation.
When contacting theSwD TWG by email, please cc to SIPO
UNclssified External1