Subject: Re: EDIINT and HIPAA

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:36:22 -0500

Greetings from Pennsylvania.  For what it is worth, the regulated electric
utilities in PA exchange X12 EDI data with energy suppliers using the "old" GISB
method; i.e. X12 EDI transactions encrypted with PGP and transported via
batch-mode HTTP POST method.  The transaction volume averages in excess of one
million EDI transactions per month.

Many of the utilities have already declared their intention to migrate to
AS2-compliant GISB as soon as the software is commercially available.

The GISB method, whether "old" or AS2-compliant, is content neutral.  It will
transport data of any size, shape, color, or flavor, whether X12, HL7, or any
other.  In addition, it supports unattended, batch processing (which is how my
company uses it).

Hope this helps.

Pete Byrne
GPU Energy EC/EDI
and
Chair, Utility Industry Group

Gunther Schadow <[email-masked]> on 11/02/2000 11:12:44 AM

 To:      [email-masked]                                       
                                                              
 cc:      Rik Drummond <[email-masked]>, Kepa Zubeldia 
          <[email-masked]>, CLEM                   
          <[email-masked]>, Gary Crough              
          <[email-masked]>, Beth Morrow          
          <[email-masked]>, "David@Drummondgroup.     
          Com" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],      
          [email-masked](bcc: Pete Byrne)                

 Subject: Re: EDIINT and HIPAA                                

Dick,

I appreciate your warning. Please me (and others) understand ...

<snip>

regards
-Gunther

---

From: "Rik Drummond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:55:46 -0600

bty, we are in the final edit phase of making as1 an rfc. after this goes
through, as2 (which is based on as1) is next.... thanks for the note pete!
best regards, rik

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 1:36 PM
To: Gunther Schadow
Cc: [email-masked]; Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough; Beth
Morrow; David@Drummondgroup. Com; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: EDIINT and HIPAA

Greetings from Pennsylvania.  For what it is worth, the regulated electric
utilities in PA exchange X12 EDI data with energy suppliers using the "old"
GISB
method; i.e. X12 EDI transactions encrypted with PGP and transported via
batch-mode HTTP POST method.  The transaction volume averages in excess of
one
million EDI transactions per month.

The GISB method, whether "old" or AS2-compliant, is content neutral.  It
will
transport data of any size, shape, color, or flavor, whether X12, HL7, or
any
other.  In addition, it supports unattended, batch processing (which is how
my
company uses it).

Hope this helps.

Pete Byrne
GPU Energy EC/EDI
and

 To:      [email-masked]

Dick,

<snip>

regards
-Gunther

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:58:32 -0600

Rik,

I agree, the original AS2 spec was based on AS1, but there were problems
discovered during AS2 interoperability testing (using RFC 822 (email) style
packaging)  related to "To" and "From" headers, which resulted in the creation
of two new headers specific to AS2, "AS2-To" and "AS2-From".  We (as the authors
of AS2) will have to provide details of  these new routing headers and cannot
depend entirely on AS1, as we had originally.

AS1 and AS2 (using RFC 822 (email) packaging) will be VERY similar, but not
exactly alike. I believe AS2 will have to stand on its own through the IESG
review process and we'll have to provide "complete"  technical specifications in
AS2 to satisfy IESG requirements.

Ned, am I correct in this postulation?

Regards,

Dick Brooks
http://www.8760.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: Rik Drummond <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; Gunther Schadow <[email-masked]>
Cc: Dick Brooks <[email-masked]>; Kepa Zubeldia <[email-masked]>; CLEM
<[email-masked]>; Gary Crough <[email-masked]>; Beth
Morrow <[email-masked]>; David@Drummondgroup. Com
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 4:55 AM
Subject: RE: EDIINT and HIPAA

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:42:44 -0700 (PDT)

> Ned, am I correct in this postulation?

Well, sort of. The specification certainly has to be complete -- you cannot
assume that missing bits will be inferred from another specification. However,
you certainly can refer to the other specification rather than repeating the
same words in both.

Do note that normative references create a dependency as far as the standards
process is concerned -- the specification referred to must be at the same
or higher standards level as the one that refers to it.

				Ned

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:42:44 -0700 (PDT)

Ned

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:42:44 -0700 (PDT)

Ned

---

From: "Rik Drummond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:26:18 -0600

i have david fischer, the drummond group guy running the as2 testing is
taking copious notes on the issues. he will be glad to give them to you soon
as you want them..... i think we are really close. one of the reasons we
changed the to / from headers was not that they were necessarily incorrect
in the current as2 spec, but because they, if used as written in the spec,
would almost always cause implementation confusion and prohibit
interoperability.  i really think we are very close with the current as2
spec. nothing like an implementation to clean things up in a spec. best
regards, rik

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 7:59 AM
To: Rik Drummond; [email-masked]; Gunther Schadow;
[email-masked]
Cc: Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough; Beth Morrow; David@Drummondgroup.
Com; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: EDIINT and HIPAA

Rik,

I agree, the original AS2 spec was based on AS1, but there were problems
discovered during AS2 interoperability testing (using RFC 822 (email) style
packaging)  related to "To" and "From" headers, which resulted in the
creation
of two new headers specific to AS2, "AS2-To" and "AS2-From".  We (as the
authors
of AS2) will have to provide details of  these new routing headers and
cannot
depend entirely on AS1, as we had originally.

AS1 and AS2 (using RFC 822 (email) packaging) will be VERY similar, but not
exactly alike. I believe AS2 will have to stand on its own through the IESG
review process and we'll have to provide "complete"  technical
specifications in
AS2 to satisfy IESG requirements.

Regards,

Dick Brooks
http://www.8760.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: Rik Drummond <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; Gunther Schadow <[email-masked]>
Cc: Dick Brooks <[email-masked]>; Kepa Zubeldia <[email-masked]>;
CLEM