RE: EDIINT and HIPAA

["Moberg, Dale" <Dale_Moberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Manny. Any other people wish to
comment on this to see what consensus 
exists on whether header string changes
are needed, and if so, what to change to?

I sense that people are far from convinced
that a change is needed. Human readability
is not a real concern here because most AS2
agents are for automated systems, right?
And it might be better to indicate that
these headers have a very restricted
applicability (AS2) and leave it to a later
standard to straighten out the variety
of namespaces used in identifying persons
or organizations in XML and EDI messaging
contexts. After all we are leaving the
values for these headers very unconstrained
and subject to bilateral trading partner
agreements...

Other angles?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manny Horani [mailto:mhorani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 4:31 PM
> To: 'Terry Harding'; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx; Moberg, Dale;
> chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: b2b_int_as2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: EDIINT and HIPAA
> 
> 
> 
> I think "as2-from" and "as2-to" naming is adequate.  These 
> two header lines
> are used and meaningful in AS2 context and they are not seen 
> outside AS2.
> Therefore, they should not cause any confusion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Manny 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Harding [mailto:tharding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 10:02 AM
> To: ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx; Dale_Moberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: b2b_int_as2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: EDIINT and HIPAA
> 
> 
> How about.
> 
> senderId and receiverId.
> 
> Terry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Davenport" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <Dale_Moberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:19 AM
> Subject: RE: EDIINT and HIPAA
> 
> 
> > I was afraid you might say that!  Actually I'm not clued up 
> on why it was
> > considered necessary to introduce these headers.  The 
> answer does not
> appear
> > to be in the AS2 revision in internet-drafts.  Perhaps I 
> missed it being
> > discussed on this list?
> >
> > How about: "EDI-To" and "EDI-From"
> >
> > Be happy,
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------
> > From   : "Moberg, Dale" <Dale_Moberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To     : "'chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
> <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> > Date   : Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:27:22 -0500
> > Subject: RE: EDIINT and HIPAA
> > >Suggest them now!
> > >
> > >Dale Moberg
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:33 AM
> > >> To: ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> > >> Subject: RE: EDIINT and HIPAA
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Could we not come up with some more meaningful names for
> > >> these new headers?
> > >> I'm thinking that in 10 years time no-one will remember what
> > >> "AS2-To" means.
> > >>
> > >> Just a thought.
> > >>
> > >> Chris.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >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.
> > >> >
> > >> --
> > >> Chris Davenport              chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Davros Computer Systems
> > >>
> > --
> > Chris Davenport              chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Davros Computer Systems
>