Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DA to discuss and review Inter-scheme designs and implementation #112

Open
2 tasks
bushjames opened this issue Aug 14, 2024 · 4 comments
Open
2 tasks

DA to discuss and review Inter-scheme designs and implementation #112

bushjames opened this issue Aug 14, 2024 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@bushjames
Copy link

bushjames commented Aug 14, 2024

Request Summary:

DA to discuss and review Inter-scheme designs and implementation.

Request Details:

  • Deadline: ASAP
  • Impact (Teams): CBC project needs approval of a design asap.
  • Impact (Components): FSPIOP API, Core handlers etc...

Accountability:

Decision(s):

  • Approved By:

Details

  • Actual decision made as a result of discussion

Follow-up:

  • Actions to implement the decisions
@bushjames
Copy link
Author

discussed at DA meeting on 2024-08-14. Those present raised no objections to anything presented so far. Workstream will continue to iterate the design and will bring further clarifications back to the DA as and when the workstream progresses.

@bushjames
Copy link
Author

discussed again at DA meeting on 2024-08-21. @vijayg10 presented an issue related to transfer timeouts and timeout messages being generated by the regional switch sending the timeout to the originating DFSP, not the proxy. The DA examined the use-case, reviewed the existing transfer timeout code and discussed the alternatives presented by Vijay. Vijay also raised a similar case where FX transfers may fail which has the same issue with addressing the switch generated error message. This was discussed briefly before the session ran out of time. DA agreed to continue the discussion at next weeks meeting as the story will not be started before then.

@bushjames
Copy link
Author

Discussion continued at DA meeting on 2024-08-28. All present agreed that using a new participant table for external participants (those participants being proxied from external schemes and not direct members of the local scheme) is preferable, rather than the alternative of using a new role type and creating additional rows in the existing participants table. The new table approach requires less refactoring of existing code and therefore has less cost, and risk associated with it.

@bushjames
Copy link
Author

Workshops have taken place this week (details shared on DA slack channel for participation by DA members). Issue to remain open as a place holder for further discussion as the work progresses.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants