Peer learning session highlights: “Interoperability testing and securing instant communication”

Definitely. The assessment would be extremely easy. Test Bed is reusable because it has been built from the ground up to be reused. Reusability was a design principle. This distinguishes the Test Bed from other cases of reusable Solutions where reusability is more like a consequence of a clever design for a specific use case. Do assess the Test Bed for reusability; it is a given you will find it to be reusable.

The main challenge was being able to accommodate the variety of use cases organisations have for conformance testing, and different projects within the same organisation. Every organisation has different processes and needs they want to support. That was something that had to be built up to make the Test Bed customisable enough to adapt to different approaches. The main lesson I would say is that you cannot force an opinionated approach to how things take place. Ideally you should design for flexibility, customisation to make sure that you have a consistent core to your Solution, but other components should be customisable.

Indeed, why not. Our Solution’s software is open source. We are always open to contributions, and we even receive contribution at source code level. The primary way we prefer getting contribution is feedback. So, try the Test Bed and Validators and provide feedback. We use feedback to check that Solutions remain unbiased, because we do not want to build a specific approach into our software that is then going to make it unsuitable for someone else to use. You want to make sure that the core principles of flexibility, reusability, and so forth remain unchanged.

Definitely, Test Bed, both the Conformance testing software, Conformance Test Bed and Validators can be used in any administrative level. There is no central governance needed so you can use the Test Bed as you see fit, and the variety of how the Test Bed is used in the wild is quite indicative of this. I mean, besides the organisation that are going to use the Test Bed, you can have use cases whereby you're exposing, e.g., a full blown conformance testing service to other parties to test with or you even using the Test Bed internally in your continuous integration workflows, e.g., to test your own code. So, there's multiple diverse ways to deploy the Test Bed and use it. Also, even the Test Bed when used for conformance testing, it supports different delivery approaches. So, you can use the Test Bed to create a centralised conformance testing service where all parties connect and test in one service, or you can follow a decentralised approach where you prepare the Test Bed configuration, and give it to different parties that need to test, and then they can set it up on their own infrastructure and test it locally. So, we do support this decentralisation or centralisation depending on what best suits your needs.

Anytime there is data exchange it is a fit for conformance testing. Data exchange suggests that you have interface messaging that you are using to exchange the data between different systems. The requirements for all of these are defined in specifications, and they define your contract between different IT systems. Whenever you have such contracts in place, you can always use the Test Bed. Using the Test Bed, you have a service that allows you to evaluate to see how well you implement those specifications. If you have an organisation that is managing these specifications, you can see how much the community already conforms in terms of their implementations to the specifications. You can also have available systems to evaluate with, that might not be readily implemented, so you can already roll out versions of the simulated implementations using the Test Bed so that you can test early on with them. We have full support across the board for data exchange making sure that the specs involved are being implemented as expected. But with respect to the point on EU sovereignty, I think here the main message to pass is that all our Solutions, our software is based on open standards. Everything is open source. Everything is funded by the Digital Europe Programme. There is no vendor lock-in, no assumptions on things like technology that is being used or specific cloud providers. So, there are no restrictions in terms of any prerequisites that come along with the other Test Bed Solutions. 

Pretty simple. You will find on our page the steps to set up conformance testing and validators. There are guidelines and tutorials on setting up, so that you can experiment. You can also contact us, or use documentation or our AI assistant.

Well, it is not automatic, right? Because we do work with GovStack and they have been upgrading their conformance testing services to make use of the Test Bed, because they wanted something that provides more powerful tests than what they were currently foreseeing, and also a platform that is easier to use and gives richer feedback. So GovStack is using the services that are based on the Test Bed but are not yet online. To answer precisely: You can be testing with GovStack, but that does not mean that you are compliant with the Test Bed. The Test Bed is a Solution in which a project can define their own conformance test cases and then assess against these. So, if you are using GovStack and are familiar with the process of testing and ensuring you conform with specifications, then yes, it is the kind of use cases and flows the Test Bed would also support.

Yes, the source code is on Github and in Code Europa EU. This specific link you posted is the conformance testing software. In the same spaces you are going to find individual repositories for the validators. These are pinned for you to access easily.

This question is about the procurement part of PEPPOL not the Invoicing. This was part of the validating that took place for the PEPPOL specifications on electronic procurement and the tendering that was also driven by the European Commission.

There is extremely specific information about the wallets and the Interoperability Test Bed. We are not driving the testing, DG CONNECT is doing this, but they have the information on their portal about the testing service and the EU Wallets.

Early impressions of the platform were shaped by bugs and operational issues experienced during its launch, which led to negative perceptions. To address these concerns, we have enhanced user experience and launched educational programmes highlighting security's value. Providing feedback channels and support resources is crucial for improving adoption.

Several other countries have shown interest in Tchap; however, each must tailor the Solution to fit their specific legal and operational requirements. Tchap is designed for France’s public administrations, integrating with the Single Sign-On (SSO) system, and may not meet other countries’ requirements.

We have finished developing the gateway. Matrix is an effective Solution for local, regional, and national public administrations. Each stakeholder can manage their own clients while maintaining interconnected links between entities. The main point I can contribute is that governance is crucial for security. When you connect your federation to another Matrix node, it is essential to ensure that the node is secure. I mentioned to you earlier that some local authorities were reorganising and setting up a Matrix federation. The central government should ensure their servers are secure, so the federation maintains strong security. Afterwards, we can permit them to connect with us and Tchap. The main concern is security, which may require central governance.

Tchap uses end-to-end encryption, so only users on the device can access the data. Additionally, all messages are encrypted, ensuring that no member of my team or any individual with server access can view the data or messages. There is no problem with this. Even if you store your data on your own servers, or deploy it on a server outside the EU, no one can access the content of your messages because they do not possess the keys needed to decrypt them.

I would suggest first creating an account on Element and the public Matrix server to check if the messaging app offers all the features you need and meets your expectations. You can deploy it yourself, contact us for assistance, or subscribe. Element provides cloud-based Solutions, and other companies also work with Matrix. If you reach out to me, I would be pleased to provide a list of companies that I am aware can deliver this Solution utilising Matrix.

The evaluation of Tchap’s potential hinges on its adaptability to meet the needs of different public administration bodies within France. Moreover, the Matrix protocol allows flexibility in deployment, suggesting that while Tchap itself may not be easily transferable to other nations without adaptation, its core technology holds promise for international collaboration in secure messaging.

Tchap has been made mandatory for all civil servants as of July 2025. This move aims to eliminate shadow IT practices and ensure that all communications occur through secure, government-operated channels. The transition from Microsoft Teams and other external Solutions is being actively promoted by government directives, urging ministries to halt new purchases of licences for non-compliant tools. 

While other countries have expressed interest in Tchap, each country needs to adapt the Solution to match their unique legal and operational contexts. Tchap has been tailored specifically for the French public administration framework, including integration with France’s Single Sign-On (SSO) system, which may not directly align with the requirements of other nations. 

[Note from Portal team: The Tchap team did not provide specific details during the session on any formal legal frameworks established during its development. However, they acknowledged that legal considerations are paramount for securing user data and ensuring compliance with national and European regulations. Further inquiries could yield more information on this topic.]