VPA Schema_field Changes Discussion

[hardikvashistha]

Team, since we are moving ahead with UPI intent/deep link approach on Payments flow/collection, where BPP will be sending out UPI intent link using payments URL parameter as per TSD schemas (on_init). Hence in this case beneficiary BPP side VPA, can it be either passed empty/can be made optional since payments will flow in via intent link? as mentioning VPA would not be necessary.

Others, suggestions (if any)?

[biodatanet]

The VPA is mentioned within init and on_init under the settlementAccounts object. Currently the upi intent link present within the payment.url field only caters to a PG's beneficiary bank. Since Settlement Accounts is field that is catered to both entities it must not be an empty or an optional field. UPI intent link only caters to a transaction facilitation. The intent of having the VPA within the settlementAccounts is to facilitate the settlement post fulfilment. Hence please populate the VPA as it could be a way used to settle payments.

[biodatanet]

Adding a note within the TSD. Please let me know your thoughts on the same. PR link:#8
@hardikvashistha

[Rohitjangra786]

Agreed. The UPI intent/deep link is only a payment initiation mechanism, whereas settlementAccounts defines the settlement destination after payment completion. Since settlement details may be required for reconciliation, refunds, and post-transaction settlement, the beneficiary VPA should remain mandatory and populated even if the payment is initiated through payment.url. Keeping both fields serves different purposes and avoids ambiguity in downstream settlement flows.