Re: Message From KO/Office

[drickards@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dale Rickards)]

Mark,

I have a concern about what you are saying.  Although I do see your point
that E:Mail and EDI over the internet should be secured using the same
methodology, there are concerns.  

Think of it this way... What if your Trading Partner wants to use a VAN and
refuses to use the internet to send secured data.  If I am the company
receiving the secured data from this Trading Partner and I use the internet
most of the time, then I will need two security procedures or packages.  One
for EDI sent through a VAN and the other for EDI/E:Mail sent through the
internet.

My point is that your can argure both sides for this issue.  If I split up
EDI data anyway, (following your example of the addressing of Email and EDI
decibed below) then securing EDI data using the X12.58 standard and using
another security method for Email can still take place.

Dale
_________________________________ Reply Separator
_______________________________
>


>Peter,
>E-mail and EDI only differ in that the content of one is
>person-to-person unstructured and the content of the other is
>application-to-application structured.  But as far as addressing and
>comms and encryption goes, they're the same beast.
>Requirements for security/encryption for person-to-person are the
>same as application-to-application from a business point of view.  I
>need privacy, authentication, non-repudiation, integrity, etc for
>both types of communication.
>So my preferred solution is to take an outgoing message from my EDI
>Translation application, give it to my e-mail application which then
>applies for that Trading Partner the same encryption as my
>person-to-person emails to a human at that Trading Partner, and it
>then sends the EDI message as a standard email.
>When I receive a message from my Trading Partner (EDI or E-mail) my
>e-mail application decrypts them using the same algorithm.  The
>stuff that is addressed to mark.hughes@ccamatil.com is read by me.
>The stuff that is addressed to edi@ccamatil.com is automatically
>re-directed to my translator and handled there.  Doesn't seem too
>complex a concept to me.
>EDI and e-mail are both the same.  The fact that trad-EDI is all
>sent using proprietary addressing over proprietary VANs is part of
>the problem, Peter, not part of the solution.
>Regards, Mark
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>*  Message From : HUGHES, MARK          *
>*  Location     : AUSTRALIA-CCA HDQ     *
>*  KOMAIL ID    : N17503  (CCAMCQN1)    *
>*  Date and Time: 05/24/96  07:25:41    *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>