Storecove - When to send what

[PatrickVHL]

MLRs are used between C2/C3 and IRs between C1/C4.

• C1 SHOULD NOT receive MLRs
• C4 SHOULD NOT send MLRs
• C1 MAY receive IRs
• C4 MAY send IRs
• C3 MUST send an MLR RE when a document contains errors that make it undeliverable to C4. Not only schematron errors, but could also be things like invalid VAT %, missing OrderReference etc. There is no point bothering C4 with that. Especially if C4 cannot send IRs.
• MLR ABs/APs MAY be sent. but I propose we change that to MLR ABs/APs SHOULD NOT be sent
• MLR ABs/APs do not add value, but they do add confusion. Dutch law uses the “ontvangst theorie” which means that once the invoice was delivered to C3 and a digital signature was received by C3 for this then that is enough. Sending MLR APs/ABs can only serve to confuse the sender. Should they wait for one or not?

[PatrickVHL]

Could be useful to explicitely state the missing starting points in the relevant paragraphs.
https://github.com/peppolautoriteit-nl/Invoice-Processes-Draft/blob/main/Invoice_to_Payment_Process/Invoice_to_Payment_Process.md#321-scope
https://github.com/peppolautoriteit-nl/Invoice-Processes-Draft/blob/main/Invoice_to_Payment_Process/Invoice_to_Payment_Process.md#331-scope
The following statements are made within the document:
C1 MAY receive MLRs (see bullet 2 of 3.2.1)
C4 SHOULD NOT send MLRs (see bullet 2 of 3.2.1 but might need an extra bullet?)
C1 MAY receive Irs (see bullet 1 of 3.3.2 but might need a more explicit introduction inside the scope section 3.3.1)
C4 MAY send Irs (see bullet 1 of 3.3.2 but might need a more explicit introduction inside the scope section 3.3.1)
C3 MUST send an MLR RE when a document contains errors, but this should be limited to the scope defined in bullet 4 of 3.2.1.
MLR AB’s MAY be sent.
MLR AP’s are now set to mandatory, see https://github.com/peppolautoriteit-nl/Invoice-Processes-Draft/blob/main/Invoice_to_Payment_Process/Invoice_to_Payment_Process.md#322-response-and-status-codes
A Transport Level Response and Message Level Response have different intentions/goals. Where the TLR supports the “ontvangst theorie”, the MLR gives insight in the correctness of a received document. This has been pointed out by endusers that seek support from NPA as one of the key missing components in the chain of document processing in Peppol’s 4-corner model. Endusers want to be sure that when a document is sent, it is actually delivered without any form of error. Exchanging MLR’s with RE and AP status would greatly improve the trust in the network.