[no subject]

["NAD+FR+EDI ENGINEERING:\"PSE:DEC+GRAHAM]

>ISSUE - Dont duplicate what is already provided within the EDI standards.
>
>Both X12 and EDIFACT have security solutions of their own. We should
>understand
>these solutions, and decide if any meet the requirements we need for EDI over
>the Internet. Where there are no instant solutions we should provide solutions
>which do not clash with the existing EDI standards.
>
>To set the ball rolling, X12.58, X12 Security Structures defines security
>at two
>levels, where security covers authentification and encrytion. The levels
>are at
>the functional group and transaction set levels. If both levels were
>applied you
>would see a sequence of segments as...
>
>        ISA-Interchange Header
>           GS-Functional group Header
>           S1S-Security Header Level 1
>                ST-Transaction Set Header
>                S2S-Security Header Level 2
>                    ...transaction set segments
>                S2E-Security Trailer Level 2
>                SE-Transaction Set Trailer
>                ...other transaction sets (either secured or unsecured)
>            S1E-Security Trailer Level 1
>            GE-Functional Group Trailer
>            ...other functional groups (either secured or unsecured)
>        IEA-Interchange trailer.
>
>Either level 1 or level 2 security can be used or both together. Note that the
>security does not kick in until after the GS so ALL addressing information is
>visible.
>
>        The security offered is:
>                o Authentification of content via the use of MAC codes.
>                o Confidentiality of content through encryption.
>
>Regards,
>
>Graham