We were fortunate enough to have people on those panels like Jim Sykes and a few others, who did everything they could to liven up what could occasionally get mind numbing.
I think Jim still occasionally lurks on this list - maybe he will surface to confirm or correct my recollection about the max 104 loop. At 12:13 PM 6/10/2011, Jason McMahon wrote: > > >I once sat in on a standards meeting for RF equipment because the company I >was working for wanted to install some and all the manufacturers were there. >It was a wonderful opportunity to see what the latest and greatest >innovations were, but the meeting itself nearly put me to sleep. For a >couple of engineers you thought they won the lottery they got so excited >about one decision the panel made. > >Sincerely, > >Jason McMahon > >8079 Village Drive > >Cincinnati, OH 45242-4315 > ><mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:gutausse%40clear.net>[email protected] > >http://gutausse.weebly.com/articles.html > ><<http://gutausse.blogspot.com/>http://gutausse.blogspot.com/> >http://gutausse.blogspot.com > ><<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jason-mcmahon/11/743/51b>http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jason-mcmahon/11/743/51b> >http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jason-mcmahon/11/743/51b > >Note: New E-mail address. > >_____ > >From: ><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob >Sigsworth >Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 11:54 AM >To: Leah Halpin; <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] >Subject: Re: [EDI-L] PO ACK business process question - general > >I sat in on some of the X12 Purchasing >Subcommittee meetings back in the '80s when the >855 was being fleshed out, and to the best of my >recollection, they chose 104 for that loop >because it's two years of weekly schedules. Of >course I could be wrong because those meetings >were so exciting that it was hard to retain everything. > >Bob Sigsworth >Akron, OH > >At 11:31 AM 6/10/2011, Leah Halpin wrote: > > > > > >Hi Doug, > >I think it's the "4" part that's got us > >giggling. Why not 100? or 105? or 103? > > > >Leah > > > >________________________________ > >From: Doug Anderson > ><<mailto:Doug_Anderson%40kleinschmidt.com><mail > to:Doug_Anderson%40kleinschmidt.com>[email protected] ><mailto:Doug_Anderson%40kleinschmidt.com> > > >To: 'Leah Halpin' > ><<mailto:leahhalpin%40yahoo.com><mailto:leahhal > pin%40yahoo.com>[email protected] ><mailto:leahhalpin%40yahoo.com> >; > >Matt Brown > ><<mailto:mbrown%40easylink.com><mailto:mbrown%4 > 0easylink.com>[email protected] ><mailto:mbrown%40easylink.com> >; > ><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:EDI-L%4 > 0yahoogroups.com>[email protected] ><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> > >Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 11:28 AM > >Subject: RE: [EDI-L] PO ACK business process question - general > > > >Leah > > > >My guess would be > >that the business case submitted to X12 requested 104 occurrences of that >loop > >and it was well documented. No reason to make it > > >1. > > > >It is Friday, but I > >hope I don't start the >1 discussion again...... > > > >Doug > >Doug Anderson > >Chair, ASC X12 Transportation > >Subcommittee > >Vice President Sales Support > >Kleinschmidt Inc. > >847-405-7457 (Office direct) > >847-826-3531 (cell) > >847-945-4619 (fax) > ><<http://www.kleinschmidt.com/>http://www.klein > schmidt.com/>http://www.kleinschmidt.com/ > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Leah Halpin > [mailto:<mailto:leahhalpin%40yahoo.com>[email protected] ><mailto:leahhalpin%40yahoo.com> ] > > >Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:12 AM > > >To: Matt Brown; > <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] ><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> > > >Subject: Re: [EDI-L] PO ACK business process question - general > > > > > > > > >Matt, > > >Nope, no DTM in ACK loop for this particular TP. I like your > >suggestion and your confidence. I'm going to go with it. One of > >the people on this list is/was on an X12 committee, perhaps he knows why >the > >104? There are 26 standard codes, maybe he only wanted 4 repeats of each > >code? No, that doesn't make sense either. Perhaps you're right and > >it was a bit of whimsy. Or maybe it was Friday! > > > > > >Thank > >you. > > >Leah > > > > > >________________________________ > > >From: Matt Brown > ><<mailto:mbrown%40easylink.com><mailto:mbrown%4 > 0easylink.com>[email protected] ><mailto:mbrown%40easylink.com> > > > >To: > >Leah Halpin > ><<mailto:leahhalpin%40yahoo.com><mailto:leahhal > pin%40yahoo.com>[email protected] ><mailto:leahhalpin%40yahoo.com> >; > >"<mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:EDI-L% > 40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] ><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> " > ><<mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:EDI-L% > 40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] ><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> > > > >Sent: > >Friday, June 10, 2011 10:56 AM > > >Subject: RE: [EDI-L] PO ACK business process > >question - general > > > > > >Leah, > > > > > >Is the DTM in the ACK loop > >active? > > > > > >If so, and assuming the Date Qualifiers are relevant, you could > >send > > > > > >ACK*IC*400*EA > > >DTM*011*(today) -- or DTM*068*(current schedule > >ship) -- or DTM*067*(current sch. deliv.) > > >(or whatever qual/date is > >applicable) > > > > > >ACK*IC*300*EA > > >DTM*068*next > >date > > > > > >ACK*IC*300*EA > > >DTM*068*next date > > > > > >Otherwise, I would say > >they expect > > > > > >ACK*IC*1000*EA > > > > > >and then your three SCHs later in > >the PO1 loop. > > > > > >Matt > > > > > >P.S. Yes, that "104" max on the ACK > >loop has always made me laugh. Whoever was on the X12 committee which > >set that either had a sense of humor or a VERY SPECIFIC > >agenda. > > >________________________________ > > >Matthew Brown > > >eBusiness > >Analyst > > >eBusiness Standards & Practices > > >EasyLink Services > >International Corporation > > >www.easylink.com > > > > > ><mailto:mbrown%40easylink.com><mailto:mbrown% > 40easylink.com>[email protected] ><mailto:mbrown%40easylink.com> > > >Direct: > >732-658-5419 > > >Fax: 212-999-7375 > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: > > > <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] ><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> > > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf >Of Leah Halpin > > >Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:37 AM > > >To: > <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] ><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> > > >Subject: > >[EDI-L] PO ACK business process question - general > > > > > >I'm directing this > >question to those of you who have retail experience. I am working on an > >855 and I've come across something that's new to me. The implementation > >guideline I'm working with shows the SCH available for use. The SCH at > >the line item level is not subordinate to the ACK segment. I'm wondering > >how to acknowledge a PO with multiple changes to the quantity and scheduled > >date, such as: > > > > > >Customer orders 1,000 pieces. I have 400 on hand > >and I know they want the rest as quickly as I can make them, I can ship 300 > >later this week and 300 next week. > > > > > >ACK is limited to a max > >repeat of 1, ACK loop (optional) is max repeat 104 (wtf?), only segment > >allowed within the ACK loop is the MAN segment which is optional and not > >applicable to my business process. > > > > > >ACK01 codes allowed which refer to > >date or quantity change are: > > >DR = Item accepted - date rescheduled > > >IC = > >Item accepted - Changes made > > >IQ = Item accepted - quantity > >changed > > > > > >SCH is it's own loop, max repeat 200. > > > > > >I am not able, at > >this time, to ask the customer what they would like (which is what I want >to > >do) so please don't suggest that. > > > > > >Should I use the generic ACK01 = IC > >and then list out my proposed shipping schedule in three SCH segments or > >should I use two ACK segments one with DR and one with IQ and then list out >my > >three SCH segments or should I skip the ACK all together (which seems odd) >and > >just write my thee SCH segments. > > > > > >Thanks for any insight you can > >offer. > > > > > >Leah > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been > >removed] > > > > > >------------------------------------ > > > > > >... > > >Please use > >the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, > ><JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, > ><OFF-TOPIC> > > > > > >Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or > >requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a > >prefix.Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been > >removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ ... Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix.Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
