SuperStream: Data Standards & E-Commerce B2B Messaging Reportback Discussion Paper Technical Co-design Review (18/6

1. SuperStream: Data Standards & E-CommerceB2B Messaging ReportbackDiscussion PaperTechnical Co-design Review (18/6)Business Focus Group (21/6) 29 June 2012

2. Superannuation Data & E-Commerce StandardsLegislative Framework Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 Enabling Legislation Explanatory Memo Data and Payment StandardsRegulations Regulations Explanatory Statement Data and Payment StandardsLegislative Instrument Instrument Explanatory Statement Technical Documentation(as referenced in the Leg Instrument) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 User Roles & Pathways Superannuation Terms & Definitions Message Implementation Guide Messaging Services Specification Error Code Lists Conformance Test Protocols Collaboration Protocol Agreement User Guides Standard Business Document Specification Payment Methods

3. Ebms & AS4 ProfileRecap and Update

4. Messaging aspects of the standardUsing ebms standard as a way to evolve SBR to address the core messaging issues from a B2B perspective + + SBR/XBRL Web services/SOAP BECS Direct Entry/BPAY Data Standard Message Standard Payment Standard ? • Peer to peer trading? • Interoperability? • Message reliability? • Security? • Presence? • Multiple capabilities? Page 4

5. ‘AS4’ ticks the boxesThe AS4 profile in ebms 3.0 meets nearly all SuperStream requirements Page 5 Page 5

6. Broad industry reachebXML message services are being used today in multiple industries Automotive industry US in the Automotive retail industry (dealer networks) and automotive manufacturers. Public health industry US in Centre for Disease Control and hospital networks. Globally development of ebms messaging was pioneered by Fujitsu, EDS, IBM, Sun, etc as a web services based B2B messaging protocol. Cisco has adopted AS4 for its B2B interactions with supply chain partners. High tech industry Utilities industry In Australia, the gas and electricity industries have been using ebms 1.0 for a number of years. Telecoms industry In Australia, the National Broadband Network has recently announced Primus as its first supplier certified to AS4 level accreditation. Public sector In NZ, Inland Revenue has adopted ebms 3.0 for redeveloping all of its interactions with the community – treating all interactions as a B2B problem Led by the huge Walmart supply chain implementations, retail is a very large user of AS2. The AS4 profile is closely modelled on this earlier version and retains backward compatability. Retail industry

7. Ebms 3.0 leading on web servicesWhat Cisco says “…web services have gained prominence as a protocol for exchanging business data for B2B interactions due to the ease of use, and ubiquitous availability of tools and skills. W3C has developed several standards such as SOAP, SwA, MTOM, WS-Security, WS Reliability, and WSReliableMessaging to enable the necessary quality of service required to support business transactions over web services… Cisco choose AS4 as the lightweight messaging standard since it meets all the key requirements, and it is an industry leading standard”. Cisco has deployed service quoting, rebates and cloud service integration amongst its business partners using AS4. CISCO, White Paper, Web Services External (WS-X) An AS4 Implementation at Cisco, 2010

8. Desired features Alternate features Other possible features Prescibed features Could be specified as alternative Messaging ServicesAS4 Profile – Feature Set Aspect Options Payload Types XML Flat File Binary Payload Compression GZIP Deflate Message Exchange Patterns One Way Two Way Transport Channel Binding Synch Push Pull Message Grouping Bundling Splitting/Joining Message Envelope SBR ebMS2 ebMS3 Message Packaging SWA MTOM Reliable Delivery Synchronous Response “AS2” Receipts (inc NRR) Sequences (WS-Reliability) Authentication Username/Password X509 SAML Client SSL Persistent Security Signing Encryption Error Management Faults Signals Nature of Services General Messaging Functional Routing Point-to-Point Multi-hop REST EDIINT Web Service Framework SOAP 1.2 XML-RPC Transient Security SSL Transport HTTP 1.1 SMTP FTP

9. Ebms/AS4 evalutionSummary of pros and cons • Cons • AS4 is not yet fully supported by wide range of vendor and open source products • The standard represents a new learning curve for the industry, but many parts are already familiar • International standards change and evolve over time which will require governance decisions and responses at Australia SBR/SuperStream level • SBR Program Board has not yet endorsed evolution of SBR in this direction • Implementers at the high capability level will need to consider the business case/trade-off issues associated with protection of legacy investments vs integrating new capabilities • Pros • Is a fully documented international standard (ISO) with high level of maturity and wide industry adoption • Has a long and well credentialed pedigree back to the days of EDI/AS2 • Has high credibility having been eveloped by big names in IT world including Cisco, Fujitsu and IBM • Utilise web services based messaging built around the XML language – meets SBR aspiration • Implementations are increasingly supported by vendor and open source products in the market – not all yet at 3.0 level • Release of the AS4 profile in conjunction with ebms 3.0 introduced significant flexibility into implementation of the standard – enabling ‘light weight’ implementation and ‘just enough’ design concepts • Independent testing and certification resources support the standard • Ticks nearly all the boxes needed by SuperStream to resolve e-commerce protocols issues

10. User RolesMapping to Conformance Profiles

11. Governance & changeWhat happens as standards change internationally The evolution of the UN/EDIFACT line of standards from EDI to ebms provides a clue as to how an industry can manage and respond to this change process over time Industries tend to adopt standards at times of their own choosing – i.e. based on their need to get something done and using what is currently available (best practice) at the time As the adoption decision takes hold, the standards choice begins to ‘stick’ and gain critical mass. The industry gradually tends to congeal around that standard. From this point, resistance steadily grows to jumping on new ‘paradigms’ that may emerge This is understandable as well as making good economic sense: once a standard has been proven as workable and key players have adopted it, pressure grows to perfect its use and get a good long-term return on investment From an adoption perspective, standards tend to be enforced either by: a major corporate player (eg. Walmart, Microsoft) who can dictate terms to its suppliers or clients in an industry regulatory dictate (eg SBR in Holland, E-filing in the US or Singapore) where a government can enforce a mandate Effective governance therefore depends on the context in which the standard is being set and enforced – either the lead player or government can decide on the timing of change In the Australian context, it is proposed to operate a type of ‘co-regulatory’ model1 where the government will work with the superannuation industry in deciding how and when to make changes As a general guide, the decision to adopt ebms 3.0 as a messaging standard should be seen as a strategic decision which sets the scene for the next 10-15 years of messaging development. Improvements should largely be confined to ‘perfecting the implementation of this standard’, unless a new paradigm2 emerges which develops wide support and a compelling business case. So, the industry would stay with 3.0 as long as it saw fit despite other versions appearing. Appendix A 1. Governance of the standard is shared in part through the operation of the SuperStream Advisory Council which is responsible for reviewing and recommending on all proposed changes to the standard. 2. An example of a potential catalyst for this type of change might be the ISO20022 standard on electronic payments. If this matured to the point where messages might be bundled with payments, this might render elements of AS4 redundant or requiring significant re-work. Part of the ‘do we change/do we stay’ question at that time will depend on the transition costs and commercial software options available at this time. Page 11 Page 11

12. SuperStream Reference AS4 Profile Reference Conformance ProfilesSummary • Entry Level • Ultra-light • Basic • Advanced Level • High-end • Large-volume • B2B Gateway • Minimal Client • Minimal Client • Eb Handler (compression enabled) • Eb Handler (compression enabled/split-join) • Eb Handler (compression enabled/split-join)* * digital signatures mandated gt-gt