We currently use VANS to transmit EDI data. We find that it guarantees privacy and is efficient. However are moving away from Vans because they are expensive. We are going to a recently developed protocol, Interactive Agent Transfer Protocol,(IATP). FTP has several limitations. The major limitation with FTP is trust. Can you trust that the person on the other end of the transaction is who he says he is? Can you trust that the data came across unaltered? Can you trust that the data transmission was private? (i.e. unavailable to anyone but the party it was intended for) Interactive Agent (IATP) is a standard protocol that addresses all the trust isssues. It uses SSL and Asn.1 encoding to resolve the trust issues. If you want an inexpensive, reliable, fast, trustworthy transaction then IATP is the way to go. for more information about what Interactive Agent is checkout the Telecommunications Industry Forum (TCIF) website: http://www.atis.org/atis/tcif -----Original Message----- From: Electronic Data Interchange Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Automatic digest processor Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 2:00 AM To: Recipients of EDI-L digests Subject: EDI-L Digest - 3 Feb 2000 to 4 Feb 2000 (#2000-30) There are 7 messages totalling 430 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Escape Character? (2) 2. FW: ftp Vs VANS (3) 3. To What Character Set Does Caret Belong? (2) ======================================================================= To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 06:57:20 -0500 From: joe mcverry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Escape Character? What is the ANSI X12 escape character? -- Joe McVerry American Coders Ltd. POBox 97462 Raleigh, NC 27624 USA 919.846.2014 AOL-IM: USACoder http://www.americancoders.com Home Of DEDIOUX - Dynamic EDI Objects Using XML and xBaseJ - xBase Database Engine For Java ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:52:12 -0500 From: John Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FW: ftp Vs VANS VANs prove more beneficial with criticial and time sensitive documents = such as invoices, POs. Catalogs and inventory reports which are in some cases very large in size = are best left to be transported via FTP. There are no VAN cost and the = documents are not affecting revenue directly. >>> Ian Verhaegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4:55:18 PM Thursday, = February 03, 2000 >>> I think that FTP works great on it's own. The major concern here are the 'value adds' that you get from VAN's, such as the ability to have all of your data tracked and archived and have a secure connection through to = your trading partner. Straight FTP forces you to give up those 'value adds'. There are products available and standards published to give you most of = the 'value adds' when you go direct across the Internet (FTP being one = protocol) if you have concerns about those issues. Ian Verhaegen -----Original Message----- From: Fred Piaskowski (IT) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 <mailto:[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 3:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: ftp Vs VANS I am seeking enlightenment about the value of using ftp versus a VAN to transmit X12/EDIFACT data. Or, should it be used as an adjunct, to VANS. That's probably what we would do anyway. It seems cost might be a factor. Anything else? Your input will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/=20 <http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:50:45 -0500 From: Dean Pierson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FW: ftp Vs VANS FTP is very well used for time sensitive documents as it can be set up to deliver or receive documents virtually as rapidly as they can be created. However, one must check to see if every byte is received. In EDI structures, the ability to do this is built into the structure. In transmission of non-structured data a sanity check must be invented - or one assumes the risk of incomplete files. Full consideration of issues in use of FTP sort of removes the concepts of "easy" or "free" which is often used to describe FTP. VANs certainly have their purpose, but being generally store-and- forward by nature, they do introduce delays (usually small). If your company has a very large number of trading partners, VANs can be a burdensome expense. In a scenario involving relatively small numbers of trading partners, or where special services are required, they are great. At 08:52 AM 2/4/00 -0500, you wrote: >VANs prove more beneficial with criticial and time sensitive documents such as invoices, POs. >Catalogs and inventory reports which are in some cases very large in size are best left to be transported via FTP. There are no VAN cost and the documents are not affecting revenue directly. > >>>> Ian Verhaegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4:55:18 PM Thursday, February 03, 2000 >>> >I think that FTP works great on it's own. The major concern here are the >'value adds' that you get from VAN's, such as the ability to have all of >your data tracked and archived and have a secure connection through to your >trading partner. Straight FTP forces you to give up those 'value adds'. > >There are products available and standards published to give you most of the >'value adds' when you go direct across the Internet (FTP being one protocol) >if you have concerns about those issues. > >Ian Verhaegen > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Fred Piaskowski (IT) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ><mailto:[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> >Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 3:27 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: ftp Vs VANS > >I am seeking enlightenment about the value of using ftp versus a VAN to >transmit X12/EDIFACT data. Or, should it be used as an adjunct, to VANS. >That's probably what we would do anyway. It seems cost might be a factor. >Anything else? Your input will be appreciated. >Thanks in advance. > >======================================================================= >To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/ ><http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/> > >======================================================================= >To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/ > >To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/ > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 15:51:57 +0000 From: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Escape Character? Quoted text is from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, by joe mcverry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >What is the ANSI X12 escape character? X12 is the EDI Alcatraz ... there is no escape! (I know I shouldn't respond to X12 queries, but I found this one irresistible. My understanding is that you select your syntax characters so that there is no clash with any data characters, and that an escape character is thus not required. Threads in this list have, from time to time, indicated that the chasm between this theory and reality has had its share of human sacrifices.) Regards Chris -- Chris Johnson +44 (0)20 8 501 1490 (home) EDIMatrix Ltd +44 (0)20 8 559 2454 (work) +44 (0)20 8 559 2497 (fax) http://www.edimatrix.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:46:46 -0700 From: Dave Darnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FW: ftp Vs VANS Hi Dean, One thing that can be done for FTP is put a digital signature on the file before transmitting. If the receiver checks the digital signature and it fails the MIC (Message Integrity Check) then the transmission was in error. Your script then can react to the failure with a re-transmission request. Standard X.509 Digital Signatures can be generated with S/MIME crypto software. But you are correct... you need to do something extra with FTP to guarantee delivery. Regards, Dave Darnell -----Original Message----- From: Dean Pierson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 7:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: ftp Vs VANS FTP is very well used for time sensitive documents as it can be set up to deliver or receive documents virtually as rapidly as they can be created. However, one must check to see if every byte is received. In EDI structures, the ability to do this is built into the structure. In transmission of non-structured data a sanity check must be invented - or one assumes the risk of incomplete files. Full consideration of issues in use of FTP sort of removes the concepts of "easy" or "free" which is often used to describe FTP. VANs certainly have their purpose, but being generally store-and- forward by nature, they do introduce delays (usually small). If your company has a very large number of trading partners, VANs can be a burdensome expense. In a scenario involving relatively small numbers of trading partners, or where special services are required, they are great. At 08:52 AM 2/4/00 -0500, you wrote: >VANs prove more beneficial with criticial and time sensitive documents such as invoices, POs. >Catalogs and inventory reports which are in some cases very large in size are best left to be transported via FTP. There are no VAN cost and the documents are not affecting revenue directly. > >>>> Ian Verhaegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4:55:18 PM Thursday, February 03, 2000 >>> >I think that FTP works great on it's own. The major concern here are the >'value adds' that you get from VAN's, such as the ability to have all of >your data tracked and archived and have a secure connection through to your >trading partner. Straight FTP forces you to give up those 'value adds'. > >There are products available and standards published to give you most of the >'value adds' when you go direct across the Internet (FTP being one protocol) >if you have concerns about those issues. > >Ian Verhaegen > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Fred Piaskowski (IT) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ><mailto:[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> >Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 3:27 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: ftp Vs VANS > >I am seeking enlightenment about the value of using ftp versus a VAN to >transmit X12/EDIFACT data. Or, should it be used as an adjunct, to VANS. >That's probably what we would do anyway. It seems cost might be a factor. >Anything else? Your input will be appreciated. >Thanks in advance. > >======================================================================= >To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/ ><http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/> > >======================================================================= >To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/ > >To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/ > > > ======================================================================= To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:25:28 -0500 From: Matt Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: To What Character Set Does Caret Belong? Looking through Appendix A of the X12.5 Interchange Control Structures section of the X12 standards (4010), I cannot find the reference to the caret (^) in any of the character sets. It does appear in section 5 (Recommendations for the Delimiters) as a potential data element separator. It seems as if every other standard keyboard character is accounted for in either the basic or extended character sets. I'm just curious if this was an oversight or if it was left off intentionally. Anyone on the committee wanna comment? Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Brown 805 3rd Avenue EC/EDI Engineer New York, NY 10022 Internet Commerce Corporation 212-271-7640 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:51:22 -0500 From: "William J. Kammerer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: To What Character Set Does Caret Belong? Dear Matt: At the last ASC X12 Trimester Meeting in October, I was resoundingly elected Chair of the X12C TG2 Communications and Control Subcommittee - Syntax Work Group, responsible for X12.5 and X12.6. Using the awesome powers invested in this office, I forced through X12 data maintenance item DM #002199 which addresses this very issue but had been languishing in the subcommittee for almost a year. I silenced or intimidated all opposition, and ram-rodded Peter Randlev's DM through the full subcommittee and then brought the DM forward to X12J - the Technical Assessment Subcommittee - the gatekeepers of X12 purity. Thoroughly cowed by my forceful defense of the change, X12J meekly passed the DM on for full X12 member approval. I think it got approved. But I'm not sure: drunk with power, I don't have time to keep track of petty details. Actually, if truth be known, if I hadn't been held by the hand through each step of the process by one of my fellow chairs, I wouldn't have had any idea what to do. But that doesn't matter: I have the title and it looks good on my resume. The text of DM# 002199 is reproduced hereinafter: Status: RECOMMENDED FOR BALLOT BY X12J Submitter: PETER RANDLEV Company: INDEPENDENT MEMBER Subcommittees: J Reason For Change A request for an informal interpretation was made by an X12 member as to the use of the carat symbol "^" in an alphanumeric character string within an NTE segment. It was determined that the carat and the left single quotation mark "`" were not listed in X12.5 appendix and X12.6 section 3.3. They appear to be the only two symbols from a typical keyboard that are not included. Thus, it is requested that they be included so that, if desired, they can be used in a character string in segments such as the MTX and NTE. It is recognized that the carat "^" is listed in section 5 of X12.5 as a possible data element separator. But , so is the asterisk "*" which is included in the two control standards. There is a note in 3.3.2 of X12.6 which states "Special characters are removed from this category when they are used as delimiters." William J. Kammerer FORESIGHT Corp. 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy. Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305 (614) 791-1600 Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/ "Commerce for a New World" -----Original Message----- From: Matt Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, February 04, 2000 4:49 PM Subject: To What Character Set Does Caret Belong? Looking through Appendix A of the X12.5 Interchange Control Structures section of the X12 standards (4010), I cannot find the reference to the caret (^) in any of the character sets. It does appear in section 5 (Recommendations for the Delimiters) as a potential data element separator. It seems as if every other standard keyboard character is accounted for in either the basic or extended character sets. I'm just curious if this was an oversight or if it was left off intentionally. Anyone on the committee wanna comment? Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Brown 805 3rd Avenue EC/EDI Engineer New York, NY 10022 Internet Commerce Corporation 212-271-7640 ------------------------------ End of EDI-L Digest - 3 Feb 2000 to 4 Feb 2000 (#2000-30) ********************************************************* ======================================================================= To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
