End of supply from LF to NB — LF view
Process flow from the perspective of the LF
Process steps
Deregistration
LF NBCheck identifiers
- 44004 — NN deregistration · AS4
Flow
Prozessauslöser
START_LIEFERENDEThe backend triggers this step with this event.
Message to NB · AS4
Write endpoint
- Transaction updated — Update process data
POST /updateProcessData
Updates the existing transaction in the backend once the message has been created.
- Transaction updated — Update process data
Response to deregistration
LF NBZ33Check identifiers
Flow
Message from NB · AS4
Response per decision tree
44005,44006→ E_3019 · Check deregistration
APERAK checks
44005,44006→Z33— APERAK check: Is referenced message known ?
Write endpoint
- Transaction updated — Update process data
POST /updateProcessData
Updates the existing transaction in the backend with the data of the incoming message.
- Transaction updated — Update process data
Decision trees of this process
| EBD | Name |
|---|---|
| E_3019 | Check deregistration |
Process information
Trigger
Runs beforehand: Contract termination — these processes name the one shown here in their result.
First message
The party involved on this page sends this itself: “Deregistration” to NB (step 1).
Other views of the process
The same process through the eyes of the other parties involved: the same steps, each read from their point of view.
- View NB — NB
Notes on this page
The source provides no use case profile for this process — objective, precondition and result are not recorded there.
The steps are the possible messages of this process, not a sequence — the source lists neither conditions nor alternatives. The small box on the step names the own view on the left: with ← it receives, with → it sends. Collapsed steps run between other market partners.
Step sequence reconstructed
For this process, the BNetzA consolidated version carries no sequence diagram. The steps are reconstructed from the BDEW check identifier table: grouped by the designation, ordered by the process step. The method agrees with the consolidated version in 200 of 200 cases that can be cross-checked — the individual line is nevertheless not editorially reviewed. Check it against the rulebook before adopting it into an implementation specification.