Re[2]: Secure ???? over the Internet

["Drum McNaughton" <Drum_McNaughton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

     Dave,
     
     I agree.  We would be smart to use the broader standards.  That comes 
     with a caveat/caution as follows.
     
     We as a country have a tendency to say we will adopt the wider 
     standard, but then decide it is not in our best interest, e.g., X12 
     vs. EDIFACT suspense date.
     
     Whatever we decide, let's do our best to ensure that it meets 
     business's needs; if it doesn't, it won't be adopted.
     
     
     Drum McNaughton
     EC/EDI Manager
     Dell Computer Corporation 
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Secure ???? over the Internet
Author:  Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> at Dell_UNIX 
Date:    5/17/96 6:06 PM
     
     
At 12:03 PM -0700 5/17/96, Rik Drummond wrote:
>Maybe we should add to RFC1767 a  fourth application type called X12.58 to 
>the existing three types of: X12, EDIFACT and mutually-agreed-to (Dave C. 
>pardon my hacking of  the actual syntax).
     
 Isn't X12.58 self-identifying, internally?  I.e., the spec was
defined in a manner the "delegates" the finer-grained details of 
identification by use of existing X12 conventions.  Does that not work in 
this case?
     
 Besides that, it was noted that X12 is U.S.-specific.  Should we
not be oriented our security work to function in an international context?
     
d/
     
--------------------
Dave Crocker                                            +1 408 246 8253 
Brandenburg Consulting                             fax: +1 408 249 6205 
675 Spruce Dr.                                 dcrocker@brandenburg.com 
Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA                       http://www.brandenburg.com
     
Internet Mail Consortium               http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org