Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 7, 2023. It is now read-only.

Content of the Transferee object #8

Open
pimg opened this issue Aug 2, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Content of the Transferee object #8

pimg opened this issue Aug 2, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@pimg
Copy link
Contributor

pimg commented Aug 2, 2022

We should allow for sending additional information about a transferee so additional verification can be performed. These include things like LEI, Tax reference numbers, VAT numbers, etc.

The DCSA Party object could be a good fit and could be evaluated for use: DCSA Party object

@pimg pimg added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 2, 2022
@pimg
Copy link
Contributor Author

pimg commented Aug 4, 2022

This issue is related to: #12

@enriquesempe
Copy link

enriquesempe commented Aug 16, 2022

We should allow for sending additional information about a transferee so additional verification can be performed. These include things like LEI, Tax reference numbers, VAT numbers, etc.

The DCSA Party object could be a good fit and could be evaluated for use: DCSA Party object

I don't think it would be necessary to send additional information, because by using the GET /v1/parties API, (please refer to Issue #13), the sender can validate the information themselves directly from the sender platform UI before the transfer. In addition, by sending something like the LEI, there might be the chance that the receiver platform does not have that information for that specific party so nothing can be validated at all.

Another thought about using the DCSA Party object is that I'm not quite sure that this information should be completed by the transferer, only the eBLPlatformIdentifier should be necessary. I mean, the transferee's complete information will be in the receiving platform, why would the sender need to complete this information? In fact, there might be some discrepancies between the information in the receiving platform with the information completed by the transferer, which one should we take as the correct one?

@pimg
Copy link
Contributor Author

pimg commented Aug 30, 2022

at a very minimal this is indeed optional. But agreed that if the information is indeed already coming from the receiving platform simply sending this back to them does not make much sense.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants