RE: General Observations

[ksteel@xxxxxxxxxxx]

>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 10:52:20 MET
>From: NAD+FR+EDI ENGINEERING:"PSE:DEC+GRAHAM HELLIAR:830-3173++REO2-F/D2'" 
<helliar@edieng.enet.dec.com>

>In particular, the Interchange Control Number (ICN) debate. In particular, the 
>ICN's location is standards specific, and not just in EDIFACT and X12, so the 
>EDI-CONSENT type needs to know about it as well. The value is within the 
>Interchange content, so if encryption is applied 'above' the edi interchange 
>level then how can you get at it.
>
>As a number of mails have pointed out there are no rules as to how the ICN is 
>populated, and I have come across 19 different ways they have been implemented, 
>whilst some are just duplication across standards, I'm sure this is just the tip 
>of the iceberg.
>
>I think ICN checking, whilst a valid user requirement is best left to the 'value 
>added' of the VAN's and the features of the various EDI Translators. It does not 
>stop people doing 'EDI over the Internet' any more than it stops them doing EDI 
>over X.400.

Folks,

I have to agree with Graham.

I think this project is so far off the rails now, it is useless 
proceeding any further.

Please unsubscribe me.

-------------------------------------
Ken Steel
The University of Melbourne
Department of Computer Science
ksteel@cs.mu.oz.au