# Cross Border Discussion Day 2

Links

• Day 1 Notes
• Relevant Issue on DA Board (opens new window)
• Mojaloop Spec Pull Request (opens new window)

# Next Steps:

• Updated the proposal APIs
• Present the consolidated change to the CCB in writing
• Couple of weeks to put together the changes (Michael/Adrian to split up the work)
• Mid-November CCB call

# Session 1

Unanswered Questions:

• addressing

  • break it down?
  • cross-mojaloop
  • what does a PayerFSP do with an address?

• ALS + routing

  • what optimizations does the API need to do/allow?

• local vs. remote DFSP ids

• Downstream failures

  • When paymnet does clear, does the payer receive a notification (esp. with 'delayed' payments that may interface with non-mojaloop systems)
  • Can a CNP send a PATCH of the tx to update the Payee somehow?

---

• multiple quotes and route responses:

  • how do display to the user?
  • We need to establish rules for filtering routes
    • hard to do: e.g. blacklisting a switch? or express a preference for certain routes

• how will Sender DFSP discover the scheme rules for a receiver?

• does the Sender DFSP need to 'know' the final switch? Or can it just 'know' the next one?

---

Running up against ML + non-ML assumptions

• does this mean CNP needs to do more work when connecting to non-ML?

  • e.g. knowing the resulting scheme/switch?
    • why? Failure handling
    • based on yesterday's decision: Should the CNP do the work here?

• Take a lesson from SWIFT:

  • bank doesn't know where the money is going
  • can we avoid this in ML?

---

CNP: Goal is to 'act like' a normal member of the network

• This minimizes the responsibilities that the scheme assumes

When is the TX considered completed?

• There might be cases where the scheme considers it done, but it is not techincally finished end to end

How do we deal with service deteroriation?

• Scheme rules

---

Back to quotes:

• how to express quote information?

  • are quotes and routes separate? Presumably, yes

• The quote is the most expensive step

  • Can we provide QOS information here as part of the lookup?

Addressing:

• Need for a globally unique address
  • Allow an address space for DFSPs and unique persons/accounts
• sheme says "this isn't in my space"
• CNP figures out the routes to get to that space

---

# Michael's Tangent:

• did we make the wrong assumptions about the CNP?

switch: Knows CNPs + FXPs CNPs: holds routing table and lookup

• if the sender or receiver is an FXP, the the tx is not a cross-currency tx

---

# Session 2

Decision:

• header value is CNP id
• partId object is the final FSP

valueDate

• implied that funds are expected to clear before the valueDate

• can still have short expiry times on tx

• CNP:

  • returns an obfuscated set of fees
  • fits into our current model

• condition:

  • existing object cryptographically tied to the tx object

    • but for multi-hop, we don't only know this
    • fixed receive makes this tricker (which is what echo data hopes to solve)

  • We want only 1 condition for all hops

  • the idea of a multi-condition is a "perversion" (according to some)

# Boards:

board 3: Cross Network lookup and quotes flow, fixed receive of 1000 PHP from USD