It seems like what you want is a unique ID for each payment that is attached to the payment. And because you can’t get this, you’re trying to force IBAN to be this (and also I suppose because different partners can’t change the IBAN, whereas they can do crazy things like forward a payment with a new UETR/end-to-end-ID, or maybe on a payment channel that doesn’t support that metadata.
Is that right? It feels like a bit of a hack but changing how banks work is essentially impossible I suppose, regardless of how trivial attaching metadata might be.
So, in some sense, I can: it just takes bank accounts to be less deposit boxes and more IP addresses. I don't see anything forceful about a change or approach.
The alternative has been to include some ID in the concept, which is error prone (some would say type unsafe).
And I don't think that's a stretch for banks. They just need to decide to do it, to educate their customers, and to commit resources to it.
It seems like what you want is a unique ID for each payment that is attached to the payment. And because you can’t get this, you’re trying to force IBAN to be this (and also I suppose because different partners can’t change the IBAN, whereas they can do crazy things like forward a payment with a new UETR/end-to-end-ID, or maybe on a payment channel that doesn’t support that metadata.
Is that right? It feels like a bit of a hack but changing how banks work is essentially impossible I suppose, regardless of how trivial attaching metadata might be.
So, in some sense, I can: it just takes bank accounts to be less deposit boxes and more IP addresses. I don't see anything forceful about a change or approach.
The alternative has been to include some ID in the concept, which is error prone (some would say type unsafe).
And I don't think that's a stretch for banks. They just need to decide to do it, to educate their customers, and to commit resources to it.