1. M-PEDD Technical Working Group
EBA Clearing
STEP2
M-PEDD Technical Working Group
18th May 2006

2. Project timing
Progress is good – despite EPC, SWIFT, BWG and TWG working in parallel – work is converging.
Interface version 2 to be sent end May.
Written comments required by 16th June
Next meeting Tuesday 20 June
Finalise Interface Specification ready for presenting to Steering Group.
Steering group 30th June.
Considerations of non-core work

3. BWG Follow up
ISO Data Formats
Feedback on Interface Specifications
MPEDD Participant System
AOB

6. DD Service Information Flow
IDF
Traffic originated by the Bank
DVF
Traffic originated by counterparties
DNF
BANK
RSF
Settlement specific files
STEP2
SDF
Settlement files for R messages
CDF

7. BWG Update
Debit message fields
Validation Rules
Mandates, Creditors and Interbank Limits
Settlement

9. Alternate Mandate Flow
Agreement between creditor and debtor
Delivery of Mandate:
New
Amendments
Cancellations
Debtor Bank
stores mandate

10. Settlement
Currently supported:
Single settlement cycle per day
Only EURO1/STEP1 supported
Bilateral Gross Settlement
Future enhancements:
Multiple settlement cycles per day
Other settlement mechanisms supported
Multilateral Net Settlement

11. Settlement: R-Messages
Post-settlement R-Messages can be received up to
42 calendar days after Inter-Bank Settlement Date.
After this a flow occurs outside of the scope of the
STEP2 Debit Service.
R-messages are settled in the next cycle. Bank must put the correct interbank settlement date.

12. Settlement: Daily Reconciliation Report
For each Interbank Settlement Date, report lists:
Debits Sent
Debits Received
Debits Rejected
Debits Requested for Cancellation
Debits Refused
Debits Reversed
Debits Settled for that date
Reported as both Creditor Bank and Debtor Bank
Can report Direct participant and Indirect participants separately

13. BWG Follow up
ISO Data Formats
Feedback on Interface Specifications
MPEDD Participant System
AOB

14. XML Schemas
One XSD Schema for each message type
Blueprints for building XML files
Diagram representation of a set of data
The XML Schema data model includes:
the vocabulary (element and attribute names)
the content model (relationships, order and structure)
the data types.

15. XML ISO20022 Schemas
FItoFICustomerDirectDebit pacs Direct Debit
PaymentCancellationRequest pacs Req. for Cancellation
PaymentReturn pacs Refund
PaymentReversal pacs Reversal
PaymentStatusReport pacs Reject

16. EBA XML Schemas
Part of the deliverables of the TWG
Based on ISO Standards XSD schemas
Some XML fields have been removed
XML status (Mandatory/Optional) may be different between ISO and EBA schemas
Data formats (ex. Number of characters) can be specific to STEP2

17. BWG Follow up
ISO Data Formats
Feedback on Interface Specifications
MPEDD Participant System
AOB

18. Feedback on Interface Specifications
Is XML the only supported standard for both outgoing and incoming messages or is the use standard swift messages such as MT104 an option?
Will Step2 be sending out a report containing the mandates that have been setup? 
(page 15, chapter number 3): The duplicate checking should be done on bulk level or on file level? With or without content-check?
(page 19, chapter A.1.1, right column, first row, 3rd line): It ought to be IDF IDENTIFICATION. Checking integrity of the filename
 (page 22, chapter B.2; field Original Reference): The Original IDF Reference should be Mandatory

19. Feedback on Interface Specifications
(page 24 etc. Appendix C): include a numbering for the XML fields
Daily timetable discussion should be considered as ongoing or final?
What does RBAC stand for?
Proposal for number of erroneous transactions required for full file rejection : Fixed percentage of errors (e.g. 5%) and simple total amount of errors.
Will it be possible to include different bulks with identical Interbank Settlement Date in the same file?

20. BWG Follow up
XML Schemas
ISO Data Formats
Feedback on Interface Specifications
MPEDD Participant System
AOB

21. BWG Follow up
ISO Data Formats
Feedback on Interface Specifications
MPEDD Participant System
AOB

22. MPEDD Participant System
First draft of the Specifications document describes a proposed software architecture
Not clear yet if the PS is intended as platform-independent solution or a complete product (eg. MPS)
Feedback from banks will narrow the feature list and help produce a real Specifications document
This document will then be used for the Vendor program process

23. Question
Development of a new type of STEP2 Participant System could integrate existing Credit Transfer service and provide new features not available in MPS 

24. MPEDD Participant System

25. MPEDD Participant System

26. MPEDD Participant System Questions to Banks
SWIFTNet connectivity SAG only or SNL?
Reliability, throughput, disaster recovery?
Longevity? (short term solution or longer term)
Supported platforms?
Supported Back office systems?
Need to co-exist with other XML services?
Need to match validation messages with outgoing originals?
Need to perform reconciliation within the interface?
Need to perform message queries within the interface?
Need to accept settlement message inputs from EURO1/STEP1?

27. BWG Follow up
ISO Data Formats
Feedback on Interface Specifications
MPEDD Participant System
AOB

28. SWIFTNet 6.0 and STEP2 services
SWIFTNet 6.0 will be available starting January 2007
Deadline for migration is December 2008
New software versions for SAG and SNL
Changes impacting STEP2 services are :
SwCompression information in FileInfo field will be mandatory and follow a single format
A new format for request types is mandated.
Development of STEP2 MPEDD service will aim for SWIFTNet 6.0 compliance
Credit Transfer System migration will share the same planning as for DD

29. Alternate Mandate Flow
Agreement between creditor and debtor
Delivery of Mandate:
New
Amendments
Cancellations
Debtor Bank
stores mandate

30. Alternate Mandate Flow Proposal
Creation of the mandate by the creditor
Reception of the mandate by the debtor
Delivery of the mandate to the debtor bank
Signing of the mandate by the debtor
Delivery of the mandate information to the creditor bank
Delivery of the mandate information to the creditor by the creditor’s bank
Acceptance of the mandate information by the creditor
Initiation of collections by the creditor

31. Pre-settlement report
Informing the bank settlement of obligations before settlement occurs.
Debit collections to counterparty banks
Debit collections from counterparty banks
Returns to counterparty banks
Reversals to counterparty banks
Total EURO1 Credits
Total EURO1 Debits
Total Net position

32. EBA Clearing