Re: Is the goal really "EDI" over the internet?

[Rik Drummond <drummond@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Our focus resulted from detailed requirement gathering last Feb. on the
needs of accomplishing EDI over Internet.  These requirements just
happen to be applicable to much more than just EDI.  Many of our
discussions revolve around how to do EDI over Internet... and after much
discussion, often are found to be applicable to both EDI and generic
messaging issues.  If we did not have the EDI focus, we would not be
ensuring that EDI's special issues are being address.  I think it is
gratifying that EDI and messaging have so much in common in the area of
requirements.

Later, Rik
EDIINT WG Chair





Mats Jansson wrote:
> 
> Dear Todd:
> 
> What you bring up has been brought up several times by new entrants to
> the list, and the answers have always been the same:
> 
> The goals are for the EDI community to be able to adopt internet as
> an alternative to VAN/direct connect, in the easiest way possible, while
> making sure that all required security services are supported.  Thus,
> 
> -by treating the EDI data as "any old EC object", the standard becomes
> usable for a wide variety of EDI/EC applications
> 
> -by not requiring any changes within the EDI data object, there is a very
> clear line between what the new encryption softwares do, and what the EDI
> translator softwares do.  For many organizations, the transition simply
> involves replacing their communication script with the EC encryption app.
> 
> -by not pre-empting, or being in conflict with X12.58 and EDIFACT security
> standards, we are not making things unnecessarily complicated, for organi-
> zations that use it, though some of the security services may be redundant.
> 
> So, in closing - we have never been able to pin-point any reasons why
> making the standard more targetted to EDI (what does it mean?) would be of
> any benefit to anyone except consultants and others making a living off
> things being more complicated than they need to.  If you have come up with
> any such reasons, the list, I'm sure, would love to hear about it.
> 
> Mats J.
> Co-editor AS#1
> 
> At 04:51 PM 2/12/97 -0500, tjeffers@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >It appears from reviewing the discussion archives and the draft document
> >that EDI standards and practices are completely ignored, and in some
> >cases specifically excluded from consideration, when trying to decide
> >the best method for implementation or how to proceed. What you are
> >proposing is really secure internet transmission of data regardless of
> >format (proprietary, EDI, etc..). Should the charter of the working
> >group be changed since EDI is really not a consideration?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Todd Jeffers
> >
> >
> _____________________________________________________________
> Mats Jansson, LiNK                       mjansson@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 2317 Broadway, Suite 330
> Redwood City, CA 94063                     v: +1-415-780-9039
> http://www.agathon.com                     f: +1-415-780-9069