Re: Message From KO/Office

[carl@xxxxxxxxx (Carl Hage)]

drickards@livgroup.com (Dale Rickards) writes:
: 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.

No, I think it is reasonable to expect than VANs will offer assured delivery
to TPs which use the internet, and will handle all the security issues,
e.g. encryption, proxy signatures, receipts, retries, etc. A VAN could
even convert between X12.58 and MIME identified security. If your TP uses
a VAN now, they would be able to continue using that VAN to reach you
if you use the Internet or a different VAN. VANs might end up replacing
or backing up proprietary point-point links for inter-VAN exchanges with
Internet-EDI, SSL, or encrypted WAN bridges. VANs would need to implement
high reliability paths to Internet exchange points to deliver messages
to Internet-TPs, which would also be useful for inter-VAN delivery.

One cannot now generally use X12.58 since most TPs don't support it.

: 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.

Right, if you want to support X12.58, then you will need another security
method for Email and non X12 data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Hage                                              C. Hage Associates
<email:carl@chage.com> Voice/Fax: 1-408-244-8410       1180 Reed Ave #51
<http://www.chage.com/chage/>                          Sunnyvale, CA 94086