VIRUS ALERT - RE: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)

["Dick Brooks" <dick@xxxxxxxx>]

BEWARE - there is a virus attached to the e-mail sent by Peter Blanchard.



Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
dick@xxxxxxxx
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Blanchard [mailto:peter.blanchard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:50 PM
> To: owner-ietf-ediint@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Gunther Schadow'
> Cc: Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough; Beth Morrow;
> David@Drummondgroup. Com; GISB1@xxxxxxx; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx; Dick
> Brooks
> Subject: RE: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)
>
>
>
> Wes,
>
> You make some excellent points, I want to focus on a few that I
> believe are
> critical in moving forward.
>
> >a) there is interest in having a healthcare group give its imprimatur to
> >AS2, since it "rounds out" the Internet protocols to make a complete
> package
> >for HIPAA-compliant, B2B messaging based on ubiquitous Internet protocols
> >such as HTTP, FTP and SNMP.
>
> Many people (not specifically in healthcare) are confused by the number of
> "B2B standards" that exist, for example:
> - Vendor initiated (BizTalk and SOAP)
> - Consortia initiated (ebXML by OASIS and UN/CEFACT, XML
> Protocols Activity
> by the World Wide Web Consortium )
> - Internet related standards bodies initiated (IETF - EDIINT ASx, IETF -
> BEEP)
> - Industry specific standards bodies initiated (HL7, GISB, UIG,
> AIAG, etc.)
>
> Not to mention all the proprietary initiatives.
>
> They look at all these "standards" and they're afraid they'll choose the
> "wrong standard". I believe industry organizations, like HL7, play a
> critical role in helping people choose a B2B standard that's
> appropriate for
> their needs.
>
> >b) there is some despair at seeing AS2 get out of IETF before quantum
> >computers pretty much obsolete everything based on computers with
> >deterministic states (this last was an attempt at humor)
>
> Actually this is an excellent point. The IETF is very particular when it
> comes to designing/endorsing standards, as it should be. Some of
> the recent
> concerns with AS1 (see Ned Freed's comments attached) raise the
> probabilities of a longer delay for AS2, because the non-GISB
> portion of AS2
> depends on AS1. I'm not aware of any issues with the GISB portion of AS2.
>
> >c) there is a sense that being an ANSI Standard is a requirement if one
> >desires to get the government to mandate its use.
>
> The Department of Energy, via the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
> mandated use of the GISB standard and I don't believe it is an ANSI
> standard. Perhaps Rae McQuade, Executive Director of GISB (gisb1@xxxxxxx),
> can comment on this.
>
> I certainly don't understand many of the idiosyncrasies of HL7 Standards
> versus Recommendations so I'll listen and learn as this
> discussion evolves.
> I have been an active participant in many of the initiatives
> mentioned above
> including:  ebXML, GISB, UIG, W3C XP, and of course IETF EDIINT. I look
> forward to working with the HL7 organization on this very
> important decision
> during the coming months.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dick Brooks
> http://www.8760.com/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-ediint@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Rishel,Wes
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:07 AM
> To: 'Gunther Schadow'; Dick Brooks
> Cc: Rishel,Wes; Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough; Beth
> Morrow; David@Drummondgroup. Com; GISB1@xxxxxxx; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)
>
>
> For many reasons it would be more desirable to be a Standard, but I am not
> sure that there aren't some shades of gray, particularly if the difference
> in the required time is important. I will wait to hear from Gunther about
> the HIPAA issue, but I am suspecting that the following is true:
>
> a) there is interest in having a healthcare group give its imprimatur to
> AS2, since it "rounds out" the Internet protocols to make a
> complete package
> for HIPAA-compliant, B2B messaging based on ubiquitous Internet protocols
> such as HTTP, FTP and SNMP.
>
> b) there is some despair at seeing AS2 get out of IETF before quantum
> computers pretty much obsolete everything based on computers with
> deterministic states (this last was an attempt at humor)
>
> c) there is a sense that being an ANSI Standard is a requirement if one
> desires to get the government to mandate its use.
>
> I would take issue with item (c). It is surely helpful to be a
> standard, but
> it is also helpful to be any sort of publication of an ANSI-accredited
> standards development organization. Furthermore, unless someone knows
> something specific, I would be skeptical that the current administration
> would introduce another delay in the final rule on security by
> attempting to
> add AS2 at this late date.
>
> Rather than a government mandate, I suspect that the benefit of an HL7
> imprimatur, and perhaps a profile or two, would be to assist in promoting
> the Internet and AS2 as means to exchange the HIPAA transactions without
> reliance on value added networks. At the same time it would be
> very valuable
> to HL7 to have ways to exchange standard (old syntax) HL7 messages and
> HL7-XML messages over the Internet using the same infrastructure
> (integration brokers and servers) as are being sold for other B2B
> applications in healthcare, the power industry, etc.
>
> If this model is correct a Standard is better, but a Recommendation also
> provides substantial benefit. One approach would be to create a
> Recommendation first and follow it up with a Standard after some
> operational
> experience has been obtained.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gunther Schadow [mailto:gunther@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 8:06 PM
> > To: dick@xxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Rishel,Wes; Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough; Beth
> > Morrow; David@Drummondgroup. Com; GISB1@xxxxxxx; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)
> >
> >
> > Dick Brooks wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Wes.
> > >
> > > Based on your description I would anticipate the EDIINT AS2
> > spec taking the
> > > "Recommendation" route, IF the group decides to go forward.
> > Do you see it
> > > the same way?
> >
> > Dick, I actually do see it the other way. The EDIINT work in
> > HL7 as we
> > discussed it in relation to HIPAA is only useful if we end up
> > with an ANSI
> > approved standard. That must be a standard, not a recommendation.
> >
> > I'll fill in Wes on the HIPAA issue under separate cover. Glad you can
> > make it for 1/8/2001. Thank you for your help.
> >
> > regards,
> > -Gunther
> >
>