RE: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA) CONTAINS A V IRUS.......

["Jones, Tom" <jones4t@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My name is tom Jones I work at the JITC.  I have been informed by our LANOps
that your HL7 documents is carrying a virus called the navidad virus.  The
number of the LANOps Person in charge is Carlos Bazan at 520 538-5286. This
warning should be given widest dissemination.

Regards,

Tom Jones
Task Leader for BIA DTS
Voice 520 538-5264 (DSN 879)
Facs  520 5383-9843
Email jones4t@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Joint Interoperability Test Command
Bldg 57305, SOB,  A7,  Tom Jones
Fort Huachuca AZ 85613-7020



-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Blanchard [mailto:peter.blanchard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 2:50 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@xxxxxxxx
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
>